國立臺灣大學哲學論評

Abstract /

It is unquestionable that "rationality" is one of the most important terminologies used in modern philosophy. Philosophers do usually criticize other`s statements or acts as "rational" or "irrational". Owing to its tremendous influences on academic discussions and even on ordinary conversations, we are enthusiastic to know what is its meaning and what is the standard when we possess the word to judge. In most cases, people take the logical consistency as a key criterion of rationality. Charles Taylor adjusted this opinion in his paper titled "Rationality". He thought consistency is plainly a necessary condition of rationality. Thought logical inconsistency may be enough to explain the most accusations of the irrationality that bandied around in western civilization, rationality involves more than avoiding inconsistency. Peter Winch also mentioned us, in his paper "Understanding a Primitive society", that standards of rationality may differ from culture to culture and we must beware of applying them crossculturally. Charles Taylor did not agree with Winch`s plurality of standards of rationality. He still opens the door for transcultural judgments of rationality and insists that the concept of rationality we use is richer. I am not quite satisfied with Taylor`s resolution on the problem of rationality. He did not tell us what is the standard we possess to make the judgments of rationality between theoretical and atheoretical societies. The only message we got from him is consistency is not enough to explain all the judgments of rationality, especially in transcultural occasions. So I try to review some more comments on rationality. Through the distinction between formal rationality and substantive rationality, Max Weber tried to help people escape from the confusion of making this kind of judgment. In a book "Reason, Rationality, Reasonableness", the author, Tran Van Doan, alleged that these three words should be applied in different aspects of human life. Reason expresses the metaphysical dimension of man. Rationality reflects human technical interest of dominating nature and of deciding human fate. And reasonableness is constructed on human daily life. People become confused only when they misplace these words in improper area. As to the standard of judgments, Tran said that acceptance or agreement could be the criterion of reasonableness. Contrasting with Taylor`s arguments, this paper tries to argue that logical consistency is still the main criterion of judgments of rationality. Consistency is concerned only in its logical formulation, and is nothing to do with a whole theoretical structure. Things interfering one`s judgment are usually happened to be in the theoretical structure or in the presupposition the debater possesses. The confusion of judgments of rationality originates from the different theory people hold, not from the common logical structure they have.