What is the "principle of dissolvent rationality"?
October 16, 2011 12:38 PM   Subscribe

What does the "principle of dissolvent rationality" mean in Chapter 1 of The Dialectic of Enlightenment?

The passage reads as follows:
Whatever myths the resistance [mythologies, dogmas, etc.] may appeal to, by virtue of the very fact that they become arguments in the process of opposition, they acknowledge the principle of dissolvent rationality for which they reproach the enlightenment. pp6
They are describing the Enlightenment as a kind of juggernaut, I think, assimilating everything it encounters and becoming stronger. I think the "principle of dissolvent rationality" refers somehow to the use of dissenting opinion to strengthen one's own convictions, but I'm not sure about this interpretation. Thoughts?
posted by jwhite1979 to Religion & Philosophy (5 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 


I agree with your analysis. I think it is descrbing enlightenment as a sort of metaconscious state that exists in a space beyond rational thought. Rational thought is in a way defined by the process of balancing out arguments in order to make decisions and reach one's goals. It is the property of defining oneself within the boundaries of the physical sphere we inhabit; by being susceptible to being impacted positively or negatively by the circumstances of life. I think that this passage is describing moving through and leaving behind rational thought as a necessary step in the process of attaining enlightment, pwhich could then be described as a state where not only our own, but all thoughts, arguments, and all the other mental bs we live with would be in a joyful state of dissolving into nothing while solidifying into one thought at the same time. I think it is saying that the arguments against enlightenment strengthen the idea of enlightenment simply by existing and acknowledging the existence of such a thing as the state of enlightenment. Then, once enlightenment is achieved, all becomes one in a single joyful chord that encomasses all chords both within and, at the same time, beyond the physical plane. That's my guess anyway.
posted by melangell at 2:12 PM on October 16, 2011


Best answer: melangell: "I agree with your analysis. I think it is descrbing enlightenment as a sort of metaconscious state that exists in a space beyond rational thought"

Keep in mind it's referring to the Kantian Enlightenment, wherein the power of the Church and royalty was diminished in favor of reason and democracy.

The point here is that by engaging in arguments and debates, opponents of Enlightenment implicitly embraced the tools of rational thought: arguments and debates.
posted by pwnguin at 4:52 PM on October 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Best answer: The juggernaut description is apt, but I'm not sure they're talking about assimilating the resistances per se. In my take, it's not so much the that dissenting opinions are being actively used to strengthen ones own convictions so much as the fact that if one resists the Enlightenment (characterized by the rationalization of spheres over which dogmatic institutions traditionally held sway) by 'arguing against' the Enlightenment, one is in a way validating and accepting one of the Enlightenment's fundamental premises: the applicability of reason and thus logical argument to every area of human experience. To be specific, "dissolvent rationality" refers to the idea that rationality itself can act as a sort of ultimate metaframework for human discourse, and that other methods of discourse and thought can be discarded. This is (to many critics of the Enlightenment) the fundamental issue with the Enlightenment: the supposition that reason alone is sufficient to illuminate all meaningful questions, a sort of universal 'solvent' of the mind.

On preview: TL;DR.... what pwnguin said.
posted by gnomicPerfect at 5:04 PM on October 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Response by poster: I see now. Thanks guys.

I failed to quote the sentence that really threw me: "Every spiritual resistance [Enlightenment] encounters serves merely to increase its strength." I think that's what led me to toward the idea that it assimilates opposing arguments, which in a way it does through refutation. Knocking down an old dogma, I guess, makes the Enlightenment principles stronger, but the shadow of the dogma is still present in the form of the evolving rationality. I hope that makes sense. Kind of like the boxer who "carries the reminder of every glove that laid him down or cut him..." But that's not the actual point of the passage. The point is that the "metaframework," as gnomicPerfect put it, seems unavoidable. "Enlightenment is totalitarian," the passage goes on to state.
posted by jwhite1979 at 5:35 PM on October 16, 2011


« Older 3/8" to 1/2" Berkel (MB) Bread slicer change in...   |   Creative re-use of soft steel wire Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.