RE-INTERROGATING THE CALCULATIVE NATURE OF HUMAN RATIONALITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF SOCIAL STABILITY

Abstract

Philosophy encompasses thinking, which is why a philosopher is sometimes called a thinker. In view of this, philosophy may be understood as the thinking of a thinker. This implies that, whenever philosophical discourse begins to make thinking a subject, philosophy then assumes a different form, that is, thinking about thinking. This is another way of saying that a genuine phenomenology of thinking entails philosophy of philosophy. This paper establishes that there are two conventional modes through which human thinking finds expression. The first is calculative rationality and the second is meditative thinking. Each of these modes of thinking is value-laden with implications on how human beings view and treat the world. Scholars from Heideggerian persuasion seem to agree that human rationality assumes calculative when it proceeds with the intention to dominate and objectify experience with a view to having a controlled outcome. This is in sharp contrast to meditative mode of thinking which allows reality to negotiate for meaning in a non-compelling manner that enthrones respect and reciprocal solidarity. In contemporary phenomenology of thinking, a call is being made to man to return to the meditative mode of being so as to enable him preserve the world and sustain human civilization. It is line with this objective that this study seeks to re-examine the calculative approach to human rationality with the aim of canvassing restraint in man’s exercise of reason as ratio. It argues that calculative dimension to human thinking is a recipe for conflict and instability because it has the tendency of always wanting to decree other perspectives to thinking out of relevance and as such, creates tension and strife in human society. As a theoretical engagement between philosophy and security thinking, the paper provides a new direction to philosophy of conflict and peace studies.