Colin (is it?) wrote:
>Is reason, thus, grounded on unreason or is it, as arguably in the case of
>the Nazis, itself the ground of unreason? ( Rational Eugenics/Rational
>Mass Murder> the irrational itself)Moot points. But I'm off to my slumbers.
Gillian Rose argues that "reason is forever without ground" (Love's Work)
at the end of an impassioned discussion of the necessity for reason,
which is weighted and also released by a tragic consciousness of its own
groundlessness.
I'm mangling her very elegant argument woefully: but I can see the point
of Reason which understands itself to be fundamentally reasonless. Rose
argues that Reason is how we work out right from wrong, reality from
fantasy and how, ultimately, how we cope with the tragedy of being
conscious at all (the problem with consciousness is that you can't win).
The Reason which resulted in the insanity of the Nazis is a Reason which
believed itself wholly and transparently justified and will not admit its
fundamental reasonlessness. Consequently, how can it not erupt in
madness? (You're right, the Stalinists were much more pragmatic -
witness Stalin's reinstatement of the generals when it became clear that
ideology wasn't going to defeat the Nazis. Any reading of how the Nazis
ran things always induces in me utter disbelief, because so many
decisions made no sense at all, even on their own warped terms.)
Perhaps anything that represents itself as the unquestionable authority
which fills in the vacuum left by God (which Reason certainly did in many
cases) may not actually be Reason at all, but merely something that calls
itself Reason.
As might be obvious from my incoherent ramblings, my cold has resolved
itself into a nasty flu and I am a delirious microcosm of climate change
(hurricanes, polar ice caps and flaming deserts all in the wrong places).
I simply don't feel capable of even beginning to wonder how you tell the
difference between real and fake Reasons, if there is one.
Best
Alison
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|