Retreat to Commitment

by W.W. Bartley III

Book Overview

Offering an answer to the anti-rationalist argument that all rational theory rests on an irrational commitment, this book also provides a case study of modern Protestant theology. The author contends... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 081269127X
• ISBN13: 9780812691276
• Release Date: October 1999
• Publisher: Open Court
• Length: 312 Pages
• Weight: 0.45 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.1" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Cultivating the seedbed of reason

Philosophers' talk about rationality is apt to soar into the stratosphere of abstractions so it must be stated that Bartley's approach has immediate and practical applications. Following his teacher, Karl Popper, the operating principle of Bartley's rationalism is the formula "I may he wrong and you may be right, and by means of critical discussion we may get nearer to the truth of the matter". Bartley has offered a solution to the basic logical problem of rationality, the problem of "the limits of criticism", that is, how to deal with a persistent critic, like a nagging child, who keeps asking "Why?" each time an answer is offered to a question. His response is based on Popper's identification of the authoritarian structure of western thought which alerted Bartley to a previously undetected assumption (shared by rationalists and irrationalists alike and so not generally debated or even recognized), which he called "justificationism". It is summed up in the formula: "Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (generally the source of the belief in question) and this makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it."Among the contenders for authoritative status are "hard facts", "the light of reason", and the informed heart, logic, intuition, sacred traditions and innumerable religious authorities. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of Empiricism the authority of sense experience was adopted, so "seeing is believing" and science provides the epitome of rational knowledge. In the Continental Rationalist tradition following Descartes the locus of authority resides with the intellectual intuition.Having discovered the hidden premise of justificationism, Popper and Bartley proceeded to criticise it, showing that we can dispense with the aim of positive justification without giving up anything that really matters, such as respect for facts, for arguments, for the systematic use of reason to weigh and test the validity of beliefs and assumptions. This new theory of rationality is not a theory of justified belief, it is a theory of critical preference between options. We can form a preference for one option rather than another (whether for a car, a scientific theory or a political allegiance) in the light of evidence and arguments produced to that time. This preference may (or may not) he revised in the light of new evidence and arguments. It may be protested that this is not a great novelty, it is just commonsense. But historically, commonsense has proved no match for learned justificationist arguments. The problem for rationalists is that the traditional dogmatic framework of thought guarantees that the irrationalists can always win, any time that they force the issue and demand that the rationalist produce truly justified beliefs. In this way the dogmatic framework provides the seedbed for the weeds of irrationalism and this yields the shocking discovery that dogmatic (justification

Changed my life

I read this book years ago when it first came out and it changed my life. Bartley extends Popper's critical rationalism to what he calls 'Pancritical Rationalism'. Justficationists, as opposed to falsificationists, ultimately hold to some kind of presuppositionalism. However, the presuppositions are held for non-rational reasons. This is justified because everyone supposedly has to do this -- their defense is 'to quoque...you too'. Bartley claims a way out is to hold these presuppositons heuristically and non-dogmatically. If they are open to revision and lead to interesting claims that can be disconfirmed by experience then you can claim to be rational. If your persuppositions can never be revised and you will go to your grave defending them, then you are not a rational person. Bartley uses the history of Protestantism as an example of a rational scientific world-view that turns itself into an irrational ideology in order to defend( save ) itself against modern science. This is the section that had the greatest impact on my life ( for the best ). I realized in order to be rational I had to give up my faith or forever resort to irrationally ( and dogmatically) held first principles to to defend my position.Well worth reading if you are a Christian, or interested in epistemology or Karl Popper's philosophy.

A deeply satisfying journey

In this book, the author attempts to do no less than pinpoint the problem with all philosophical thought: its reliance on a justificationalist core, Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." If everyone is required to make an irrational, arbitrary commitment to a system (Christianity, Nazism, atheism, some of many!), then nothing is true and objective truth goes out the window. His solution, after going through a fascinating and witty romp through Protestant history, is to refute this cop-out and hold everything under criticism, even criticism itself. This book struck at the heart of things I have been thinking about for years, and is very highly recommended.