The AskPhilosophers logo.

Rationality

I've heard it asserted several times in quite different contexts that "people make decisions primarily using emotional criteria, and only after the fact do they then use reason to justify this decision." I'm curious both to hear your response(s) in general, and perhaps also in a more specific context. If I understand Karl Marx' economic theory correctly, he asserts that the foundation of all social relationships is technology, or economic relationships, or how people earn a living. Social, political, religious, and governmental structures then develop as a justification of the fundamental underlying economic relationships. I'm curious on philosophical responses to this assertion, because it seems to me that it is the basis for the crucial argument that then follows. He then asserts that, because technology is constantly evolving, while bureaucratic structures are static, that a "dissonance" develops over time, which must eventually result in a re-balancing. so that the other structures are then in alignment with the technology of the times (after which the process then repeats). It reminds me in a way of Stephen J Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution. Thanks for any clarity you can bring to these ideas!
Accepted:
May 24, 2012

Comments

Stephen Maitzen
May 24, 2012 (changed May 24, 2012) Permalink

Regarding whether it's true that "people [in general] make decisions primarily using emotional criteria, and only after the fact do they then use reason to justify this decision": This question is empirical, and it belongs to psychology. I wouldn't trust any philosopher as such to answer it. I'm not sure that psychology, in its present state of development, can answer it either, but philosophy as such doesn't have a hope of answering it.

The claims you attribute to Marx are also empirical, and in this case best evaluated by economic historians. The claims are so sweeping that I myself would need an awful lot of evidence before I'd accept them. I'm not sure how we'd even get reliable evidence that "the foundation of all social relationships is technology, or economic relationships, or how people earn a living": the claim is not only sweeping but also ill-defined (what's meant by "foundation"?).

Philosophers as such aren't equipped to answer empirical questions. But I think they can be useful in pointing out that particular questions are empirical (and so best left to disciplines other than philosophy) and that the questions need to be better-defined.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/4691?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org