Rationality and the self
Liberal religion, by which I mean Unitarian Universalism and mainline Protestantism, grapples with the same criticism as political liberalism–that it emphasizes the individual to the point of being reductionist. As well, it can fall prey to a hyper-rationalism that excludes the role of emotions in knowing. Our brains are built in such a way that emotions are part of our perception of the world. Rather than being something additional, to scrape off before building a syllogism, they are part of what we must interpret as we take stock of how to act.
But our emotional response is to a large extent automatic and conditioned, whereas our rationality feels freer. Practically speaking, however, as much as we are individuals, we are part of society, adopting categories for ourselves and others that impact the way we think. Born into a community, we develop our self-understanding in tandem with the way others view us.
The recent massacre at Virginia Tech has made me reflect upon some of what I’ve written in this series. Liberalism has an optimistic view of human rationality and capabilities. While not blind enough to think that providing space for these to thrive will result in a utopia, there is, at bottom, a hope that humans can rise to top (rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator). But this optimism cannot neglect the importance that community has in cultivating capabilities and a rational imagination.
Several of Nussbaum’s human capabilities naturally draw us towards this:
4. Senses, imagination, thought. Being able to use the senses; being able to imagine, to think, and to reason–and to do these things in . . . a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education . . . ; being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing, and producing expressive works and events of one’s own choice . . . ; being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech and freedom of religious exercise; being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid nonbeneficial pain
5. Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and persons outside ourselves; being able to love those who love and care for us; being able to grieve at their absence, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger; not having one’s emotional developing blighted by fear or anxiety. . . .
7. Affiliation. Being able to live for and in relation to others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; being able to imagine the situation of another and to have compassion for that situation; having the capability for both justice and friendship. . . . Being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others.
I don’t know why the shooter at Virginia Tech was stunted, but it seems pretty clear that, particularly in these three areas, he was severely lacking. And emotions influence rationality, just as imagination does. How is it possible to engage in ethical rationality if we are unable to put ourselves in a different perspective, and understand, to some extent, the emotions of the Other? Cho Seung-Hui’s writings demonstrate that he had emotional tunnel vision, was self-focused, unattached to others, and incredibly paranoid and anxious.
How our society could have cultivated this man’s sense of self, I don’t know (perhaps we won’t ever have enough specific information to make that judgment). It does seem, though, that we need to explore the link between emotions and rationality. This exploration can (and is being) done in conjunction with neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy.
What about the religious naturalist’s response? What kinds of solutions are there to these ills without a transcendent being, if we are the product of evolution? I’ve hinted above that part of the problem is first diagnosing the situation. Rather than beginning with assumptions (karma, original sin), a religious naturalist will use all the tools at her disposal to form an explanation. And then test it.
A religion that–despite my dismissal of karma–is close to this paradigm is Buddhism, which is why so many religious liberals are drawn to it. I’m not naive enough to think that Buddhism practiced by the majority of humans is the same as the philosophical Buddhism found in the Tripitaka or monastaries. But there may be aspects of this ancient faith (yes, I use that term intentionally) that are amenable to a religious naturalist. More on that will come.
However, one crucial point to make is that Nussbaum and Buddhism, broadly construed, part ways on the concept of self. In her book, she condemns the “revisionary metaphysics” of Buddhism, which denies that human beings are separate selves. Liberalism begins with the individual in human society (although it does not negate the role of the community). Buddhism, in a sense, starts at this same place, although it seeks to deconstruct our intuition that we are “I.”
Paul Rasor in Faith Without Certainty, which tackles some of the criticisms of liberal religion, argues that a Buddhist ethic originates from this awareness that You and I are not separate, that all is interconnected at a basic metaphysical level. He construes this as an impetus for imagining what the Other is feeling, and a social justice emanating from this.
In terms which Buddhists consider “conventional”, we have selves and are individuals. But there is an ultimate reality beyond this. The question is whether these metaphysical discussions have a direct bearing upon the thesis of classical liberalism, or whether ethics must remain at the conventional level. I am not yet convinced that the two are inherently contradictory, although I am interested in exploring their tensions. That’s an ongoing project. In my next post, though, I hope to clarify why I am not a Western Buddhist, although I am drawn to some elements of the religion.
Images: Rene Magritte, Le Pelerin (The Pilgrim); Detail of Pablo Picasso’s Guernica
May 4th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
[...] This is a continuation of my personal essay series. The last installment, on rationality and the self, can be found here. [...]