RATIONALITY AND HAPPINESS : CAN RATIONALISTS BE HAPPY?

Rationality and Rationalists: Given the vastness of concept and semantic challenge involved in limiting its entire scope down to just few crisp sentences, I was tempted to look for an answer in Wikipedia in order to arrive at a plausible, concise and straight forward definition for rationality. However, I soon realized my folly after encountering the following sentences on Wikipedia which seem to be taken out straight from a Psychology or Philosophy textbook.  –

“Rationality is the exercise of reason. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It also refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons for belief, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used in the specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. The term "rationality" is used differently in different disciplines.”

Now, I don’t know about you Reader, but to me the above text looks all Greek. Its problem lies in assuming that the visitor ‘will be’ from a certain academic background and have certain degree of exposure to the subject. Morons! Had a visitor already knew about the subject, why would he bother to look for the term in Wikipedia in the first place?

Did you notice what I just did to arrive at the conclusion (in bold) given in the above paragraph? Here’s a sequence of the thought process.

·       First figured out the core ‘belief’ (also known as underlying assumption) of the Wiki contributor

o   “Online visitors to Wiki will understand my definition of rationality”.

·       Placed the ‘belief’ of the Wiki Contributor against some available facts  

o   Experiment to find if visitors to Wikipedia were able to comprehend the said matter - I asked my wife to read the text and tell me what she understands of the definition, she reads it and repeats some select sentences verbatim to me, upon asking if she could define it somewhat differently, she expresses her inability.

o   Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia – Known fact.

o   Serious academicians find information contained in Wikipedia inadequate – It is well known fact that serious academicians seldom rely on anything other than field journals.

·       Then based on the facts drew inferences

o   Visitors without prior knowledge of psychology/philosophy find the given definition difficult to comprehend.

o   The above point contradicts the underlying assumptions of the contributor.

o   The contributor is most likely a student of Psychology/Philosophy 4- Only layman visit and use Wikipedia since experts find the information available on Wikipedia is not adequate for use by them.

·       And finally formed a judgment

o   Since only layman use Wikipedia the definition should have been presented in a more basic fashion, preferably using visual cues like diagrams and flow charts to aid comprehension. Since the definition of rationality contained in Wikipedia does not conform to the requirements of the audience to whom it is targeted, to that extent, it is a bad definition).

Rationality simply means adoption of a systematic thinking mechanism involving collection of facts (and not beliefs), drawing inferences based on the collected facts ( and on the basis of facts only), taking honest assumptions (only where it is absolutely necessary) and forming a judgment based on drawn inferences. Anyone who is found to be adopting this methodology for arriving at his judgments can be said to be a Rationalist or simply a Rational Man/Woman. Isn’t this definition much simpler and more precise than the garbage available on Wikipedia? Now, let’s move on to the second part..

Happiness: I again looked into Wikipedia, only this time for ‘happiness’. And surprisingly this time, Wiki provides a remarkably simple yet perfectly apt definition. “In a March 2009 edition of The Journal of Positive Psychology, Sara Algoe and Jonathan Haidt say that "happiness" may be the label for a family of related emotional states, such as joy, amusement, satisfaction, gratification, euphoria, and triumph.” But there is still one big problem with the above definition. Although it correctly establishes that at any given moment in time –

Happiness =  (Joy + Amusement + Satisfaction + Gratification + Euphoria + Triumph +…)

It does not explain  -

a)    Whether it is only perceived happiness (where the subject is consciously aware that he/she is happy) we are talking about or is it actual happiness (where irrespective of the subjects awareness, he/she is deemed to be happy given his/her experiences). For e.g. Radha may be satisfied, gratified, amused etc. but if she does not consciously know that she is ‘happy’, then she is not likely experience happiness. However, people around her may still believe “Radha is happy” irrespective of Radha’s own state of mind.

b)    Whether the happiness in question is an outcome of current experience, past experiences inscribed in memory, or both. Taking the example of Radha again, Radha may make a statement, “I am happy” based either upon ‘happy’ moments inscribed in her memory, the Swiss vacation she is currently experiencing (irrespective of whether she is ‘happy’ in her daily life or not) or based upon  ‘net happiness’ derived from all her experiences (good or bad) till date.

c)     Whether the happiness so arrived at would mean the same thing to everyone. This can be explained through a very common situation – Example - Its Diwali and Radha is filled with happiness. Occasions act as a means to achieve happiness, this mainly results from dominance of childhood memories. Children eagerly look forward to some occasions because they usually bring some benefits attached to them, like new clothes, sweets, no pressure to work or study, extended time to spend with friends etc. It is observed that most people like Radha, carry forward their childhood memories well into adulthood thus expecting similar treatment to what they received as a child on such occasions. However, some people who either did not get benefited from such occasions as a child or people who at some point of time in their lives felt the benefits from such occasions were hardly relevant lost their interest in the practice. There is also a major section of population, which derives their happiness from occasions like religious festivals, just because they believe that’s the way things are – “Its Diwali, so one should be happy” they reason.

d)    Whether the happiness so arrived at, has any permanence. For e.g. Radha makes this statement on Monday, 1.01.2011 at 11.00 A.M, “I am the luckiest girl in the whole world, I am so happy”. On Monday, 1.01.2011 at 8.30 P.M the statement changes to, “My life has been so miserable, why am I still living?”.

Happiness is a complex subject to understand, primarily due to its subjective nature. Happiness as a standalone concept is totally meaningless for the objective mind. Its importance stems from the fact that in subjective settings (which are abundant in society), it plays a larger than dominant role in determining the level of motivation in an individual. It also influences the nature of behavioral output and therefore plays an important role in improving the quality of inter and intra-personal interactions.

Conclusions – Can Rationalists be Happy? 

Well, they don’t have to. Rationalists typically have enough reasoning capability (or else they wouldn’t be a rationalist at all) to deduce that happiness is an outcome of a subjective mental exercise, which they are better off not being part of (since allowing germination of subjective thought processes impairs reasoning capabilities in the long run). Perfect rationality always coincides with the ‘Zero’ state between happiness and sadness and is the ultimate state which every wannabe rationalist, like yours truly, aims to attain.

Individuals however must bear in mind that everyone (rational or otherwise) are subject to the laws of society and must therefore perform actions/undertake behaviour which are fully devoid of objectivity at times. As from a social stand point, such actions or behaviour are crucial for achieving happiness of one’s near and dear ones, who may not be inclined towards following such strict reasoning regimen. For e.g. I was in a state of dilemma for the last few days as to whether I ‘want’ to celebrate Diwali (I have my conceptual differences with most festivals, Indian or otherwise). But not celebrating Diwali, or half hearted Diwali celebrations would have certainly affected the ‘happiness quotient’ of my wife, my parents, close relatives etc. who were looking forward to a ‘Happy Diwali 2011’ since ‘Happy Diwali 2010’ perhaps. Their cause was also helped by the fact that, this was ‘first Diwali’ since my marriage.

I think its perfectly rational on the part of people to succumb to the subjective demands of those on whom they are emotionally dependent. For, anyone who fails to do this would be destined to lead a solitary life.  

“HAPPY DIWALI”

YF-IThink