[lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance (and other responses)

Jerry Monaco monacojerry at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 09:23:09 PDT 2006


On 10/5/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Astrology is Bullshit. Acceptance of that is the prior condition for a
> rational discussion. That some people believe in it is a political
> problem, as was lynching in the south, not a basis for considering its
> possible validity.
>
> Carrol
> _

Carrol,

I often agree with you but here I have to call you out for rhetorical over-kill. Astrology is not racism.

There are certain kind of irrational beliefs that are dangerous on their face -- for example: racism, the "anti-mob" type of mindset exhibited by Woj in his unknown imitation of Cicero without the rhetoric, elitism as belief system of all sorts.

And their are certain kinds of irrational beliefs that are probably or potentially dangerous but not necessarily so -- for example: most belief in organized religion, Freudianism, the belief that everything happens for a purpose, most philosophy, deification of J.F.K and other cults of personality., the ideology of celebrity gossip, the belief that medicine is a science.

Then there are certain types of irrational beliefs that are relatively benign or diversionary unless they are part of a larger world-view that combine with "destructive" social movements, etc.-- for example, most literary theories; the belief in alien abductions; the belief in romantic love; the belief that art or poetry or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, really, truly gives meaning to life; the belief that chess, football, or cricket is a preparation for "life"; and many, many other forms of self-deception. My judgment, at least, is that the self-deception and irrationality of astrology is mostly a diversion like chess or baseball, and not dangerous like racism or cults of personality.

Perhaps the Central American solidarity movement changed my mind on these things. I can still be (irrationally?) enraged by systematic irrationalism but with most people beliefs in supernatural entities or beliefs in "bullshit" theories will do little harm, (even to themselves) and might even motivate them to promote solidarity and equality. The belief systems of my Quaker and Mennonite friends always perplexed me. Those beliefs are alien to me. The religiosity of the radical left Catholics I knew around the Catholic Worker and similar groups repelled me at times. But a comparison with my secular left friends (myself included) shows me at least three things. (1) Many of us have irrational beliefs that we think of as rational; (2) our secular irrational beliefs are often as skewed as their supernatural beliefs; and (3) the people of those I know who seem to have the most longevity in the work for justice were those very same Mennonites and left Catholics.

I draw no conclusion from this, except that a little tolerance of irrationality is called for in many cases. I find astrology silly, but for the most part harmless. Though a few of the people I knew actually used it to write novels or as a way into ecological thinking.

I'll save my big rhetorical salvos for the targets that I really want to destroy. Astrology is worth a few spit-balls, but no salvos. And the same can be said for most other beliefs that are popular now days. I myself have been unable to get over the belief that somehow, somewhere, somebody will make that movie, write that novel, or give me that poem that will once again change my life and make everything different. Now how irrational is that?

Finally, I don't think it is profitable in most face-to-face cases to set prior conditions for a rational discussion. Such conditions are agreed upon or develop as you go. I have met true believers in astrology who I could have rational discussions with about economics or George Bush the Elder, but couldn't have rational discussions with about astrology. There was even one with whom I could have rational discussions about Astrology but he would believe that my rational proofs were a sign of a deeper irrationality. This was with a novelist friend who kept "two sets" of books regarding astrology in his mind. He would draw complex astrological charts of his characters and deeply believe that "it" worked. Yet, he did not consult astrology otherwise.

Or take all of the irrational mystical beliefs of a great poet such as Yeats. I think after reading through Yeats's poems many times and glancing through some of his very weird mystical writings that Yeats would have been less of a poet without his mystical beliefs. His mystical beliefs acted as a kind of social-historical "intuition" and those beliefs gave him great insight into the undercurrent of the history of his time. Perhaps similar conclusions could be drawn about Blake's own personal religion.

Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061005/82767add/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list