Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:19:54 -0600
Subject:  'capacity to reason'



Ralph Dumain wrote in reply to Leo:
In other words, the capacity to reason is not detached from life, but
is a direct product of social circumstances.  True enough, but does
this make irrationalism any less contemptible or childish?
[snip]
But if you are aware of what you are really up against, all the
mythology in the world won't help you, because there is no substitute
for cultivating rational thinking, above al rational thinking about
society and its organization.
***

But Ralph, how can we "cultivate rational thinking" in the face of
those adverse "social circumstances" ?  

In a biology discussion with well-off white Utah kids about 15 yrs
old, I was asked about the biological purpose or adaptation of dark
skin and wide lips.  They were actually pretty impressed with the
idea that brown skins get less skin cancer - never occurred to them
that black was biologically better.  I pointed out that originally
whites developed only in the least sunny part of the planet - NW
Europe, and that was a tiny minority of the world's population/area. 
I even told them that _their_ ancestors were the ones with the
genetic "mutation", which just means change.  

And the lips?  I just turned it around and asked them what was the
use of having narrow little lizard lips.  No known difference either
way.

But I doubt if any of these kids had ever even talked to a black kid,
they had very different experience and little programming like that
of some kids in DC, and came from very different social
circumstances.  They seemed quite easily to be able to accept a
straightforward "scientific" explanation for their questions.

But we shouldn't think only of "capacity to reason".  What about
incentive to "reason"  or local, immediate, social rewards for
certain kinds of "reasoning" ?  I think this is part of what 'social
circumstances' includes.  

Makes sense?
Lisa



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---