NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND

In Monday night's discussion, Thad asked whether we side with the Underground Man or with the Gentleman. That is, do we believe that man is irrational and independent and on occasion, chooses to assert this independence by making a completely irrational, disadvantageous choice. Or do we believe that man is a rational creature whose actions are pre-determined by his brain chemistry, and if we could fully grasp the human brain and understand what makes us tick, then each individuals' actions could be predicted with absolute accuracy. The majority of the class, myself included, sided with the Underground Man. This isn't really surprising considering what exactly the latter mindset proposes. I'm not saying that humans aren't intelligent, rational creatures, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I think humans are incredibly intelligent, incredibly rational creatures, and I think our remarkable intelligence and rationality not only gives us the ability to, but to a certain extent requires that we, on occasion, act irrationally, as a means of exhibiting our intelligence and rationality. I know I'm really oversimplifying here, but, it's kind of like when disgustingly wealthy people spend a disgusting amount of money on something they don't need just to show how disgustingly rich they are. But back to the Gentleman mindset. It's a really romantic, idealized mindset that sounds great in theory, but even if we do develop a complete understanding of the human brain and of neurological chemistry, to the point where we know why people make the 'choices' they make, we would be unable to predict and account for the infinite slew of environmental and social factors that influence our choices. And adjusting environmental and social factors as a means of encouraging certain outcomes – well, that kind of seems like cheating, and might be trouble than it's worth. I almost wish it was as easy as the Gentlemen say it is. If we could predict human behavior then we could prevent crime and murder and war and all those awful things that happen before they happen, and the world would be warm and fuzzy and not unlike Minority Report. But at the end of the day, it's not that easy. It couldn't be that easy. There will always be external factors that go unaccounted for, be they environmental or social or otherwise. And a neurologically (or otherwise) pre-determined existence, a la Sisyphus, might be completely torturous and worst than not existing at all.

Stemming from this came the topic of compassion and altruism and how each relates to either rationality or irrationality. On the surface, compassionate, altruistic actions seem to be irrational and disadvantageous, insofar as the individual who demonstrates such actions is thought to gain little or nothing. Considering his insistence of the master morality reigning supreme over the herd morality, I think Nietzsche would certainly agree with this proposition. I, however, am not so sure. My immediate perception of altruism as it relates to rationality, is a little conflicted. I suppose (and I say this with hesitation) that my most visceral, intuitive inclination would be to side with the those who correlate altruism with irrationality. That's not to say that is my final conclusion, but merely my most intuitive inclination. Compassion and altruism do come off as a bit of hindrance considering the time, energy, and possible resources spent on empathizing with the misfortune of others could have been used to improve one's own position in the world. But I think if we use our rationale and really consider the ubiquity and cerebral power of compassion, it seems more likely that humans have developed altruistic aspirations and a generally compassionate nature, as a means of encouraging and perpetuating the survival of humanity as a whole – and that seems totally rational. Further evidence in favor of this notion, lies in the behavior of other animals, and how compassion relates to cerebral capacity and intelligence. One will find that, almost without exception, more intelligent animals, those believed to be more conscious and self-aware – guerillas, chimps, dolphins, canines, large felines – have the capacity for compassion, whereas less intelligent, less conscious animals, are significantly less likely to perform altruistic acts. So, assuming (and I think this is a pretty fundamental assumption) there is a direct correlation between intelligence and rationality – that is, greater intelligence means a greater capacity for rationality – then more rational animals have a greater capacity for altruism and compassion. Thus, compassion and altruism are rooted in rationality.