How can a rational philosopher attempt to understand philosophers, such as Heidegger, Derrida or Foucault? These philosophers claim to be against the method of reason. Can a philosopher still philosophize without using reason?

Comments

Thank you for your question. It seems to me that the 'rational philosopher' in your question starts out from the assumption that there is one and only one type of rationality. This, however, is patently false, since what is and what is not rational, and why, and how do we know, are all key questions within philosophy. Think of Quine or Wittgenstein, among many others. 'Rationality' is indeed one of the categories on this site (on the list to your left).

The philosophers you mention one and all believe that philosophy is essentially historical. By this I mean they tend to agree that philosophy is not an enterprise that can be conducted except through a constant interrogation of its own roots. Not surprisingly, one of the historical facts that fascinates these philosophers is that the notion of rationality is constantly changing. A few examples: the dialectical method in Plato should be considered (arguably, at least) not a technique among potential others (others that could have arrived at or evaluated the same answer), but a uniquely valid form of rational enquiry; indeed, a unique way of developing the life of the mind. In Descartes, claiming the truth of 'clearly and distinctly' apprehended proposition is rational, but not the outcome of reasoning. Again, Kant claimed he had invented a whole new type of logic (transcendental logic) that was irreducible to (though parallel to) classical logic. Finally, Hegel's dialectical analyses are rational, but not according to the standards of rationality of many philosophers before or since.

When the philosophers you mention seem to reject rationality, what is being rejected is either (i) a particular historical form of rationality; and/ or (ii) the claim that the standards of rationality currently dominant within philosophy are ahistorical -- that is, fixed and universal. Complicating matters further is the issue of how philosophy should proceed if the standards of rationality are not simply given. It is often observed that it is easier to appreciate the criticisms that Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida level at other philosophers (we should add Nietzsche to this list), but much less easy to grasp what it is they would like to replace it with. This difficulty stems from this additional complication.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Philosophers, Philosophy