How Rational Are We?
A Phenomenological Examination of the Phenomenon of Collecting:
Are the Processes of Rationalization Exercised By Collectors Evidence
That We Are Not As Rational As We Think We Might Be?

The Keynote Address:  2004 Conference of the Continental Philosophy Group

Introduction

	Just how rational are we and just how rational can we be? In the Post-postmodern environment of the Contemporary Era no serious philosopher would consider themselves to be perfectly rational. To be absolutely rational is now generally regarded as an impossible objective that can be neither formulated nor executed! Furthermore, the attempt to be perfectly rational, this fool’s errand, is also generally regarded as a dangerous task not only for that person concerned but for the society in which that person lives. Indeed, a person who attempts to be perfectly rational is, potentially, a very dangerous person - a person able to commit horrendous deeds of mistreatment upon others, wittingly or unwittingly, since in their sacrifice of pragmatical means for the idealities of so called rational ends we find that their one-eyed pursuit of such objectives inevitably causes them to sacrifice what it means to be human, namely, being-human-before-others along with all its ambiguities, imperfections and acceptances of imperfection; this misplaced sense of a rational desire for order being a recipe for suffering on a grand scale especially when individuals or groups with such aspirations are let loose upon the world stage. (1)

	Now, I am not arguing that we are perfectly irrational. Nor am I going to argue that we shouldn’t try to become more reasonable in how we choose to course through this World-of-Life. I am only arguing that we cannot be absolutely rational and consistent in everything we do and say, and, that the chasing of such a phantasm of trying to be absolutely rational involves so much distortion in our perception and interpretation of the relatively-real that we only stand to fall and loose all sense of a human perspective which, in turn, opens us up to all the dangers implicit in this type of illusory project. Simplistically put and rhetorically presented I would say, as others have, that the end of the rational project in European history, as a metaphor, were the concentration camps of a Nazi Germany and the gulag in a Stalinist Russia! (2)

	In this short introductory paper let me merely show that we cannot be perfectly rational. To this end I would like to examine, phenomenologically, the phenomenon of collecting. In trying to understand this type of obsession let me demonstrate that the utilization of processes of rationalization to channel and defend such a style of behaviour is evidence that we are not being perfectly rational in the first place. And to this insight I would like to say “thank goodness”! To be reasonable we do not have to be absolutely rational, and, that to be absolutely rational is not to be reasonable under any circumstances because we cannot be absolutely rational, and, that such a pursuit can only be pursued in a psychotic fashion! That the point of this examination of the phenomenon of collecting is to show, by extension, that all intentional behaviour, however reasonable or unreasonable, cannot be exercised in an absolutely perfect rational manner! (3)

The Phenomenon of Collecting

As a collector of various types of collectibles I have often wondered what exactly motivates myself in this obsessive-like type of task needed to be performed and re-performed in order to amass the requisite collection, and, at just what point should they stop collecting that type of artifact? As a collector of clocks insightfully said to me once “one clock is one clock, two clocks is a collection, and three clocks is a poisonous obsession.” This off course was said tongue in cheek. Just how insightful was this clock collector to make this type of statement and not re-align themselves with its wisdom? Just how many clocks do we need in one standard sized house? Lest I be accused of only pointing the finger of excessive accumulation at upfront collectors let me ask all people just how many radios and television sets do they possess, just how many pairs of shoes they own, just how many books they keep, indeed, just how many ‘libraries’ they might have…? (4)

	Now, some people, admittedly, are not collectors. Then, some of these non-collectors may be permanent divestors. Often their obsessions work in reverse.  One needed object is one object needed, two objects is one object more than needed, but, three or more of those objects is only a mess, a muddle, a distraction, a malignant burden, an imposition upon the soul, etc! Furthermore, some divestors are only part-time divestors being also part-time collectors. These poor souls oscillating between periods of seeking a possessive richness in their lives and then following it, for what ever psychic reasons, with profound periods of a possessive minimalism. (5)

	Why? Why collect?! And how rational is this type of enterprise? The collector is often well motivated. In the organization of their pursuits they could well be referred to as rational persons, indeed, very rational persons. Well motivated they seek what they seek with a determination that amazes both collectors and non-collectors alike. But how rational is it to possess, say, six motor-bikes, or, a small collection of one thousand silk-ties, or, a cellar of four thousand bottles of premium red and white wines? Surely, how the collectors rationalizes their collecting habits is a sign that some degree of dissonance is being experienced in this regard? This owner of six motor bikes tells me that one is for going cross-country, another is for going around town, another is for more formal occasions like going out for a Sunday drive. What the other three were for was too subtle for me to get a handle on and concerned arcane matters of engines and types of engine. (6)

	So, it would appear that collectors that indulge in excessive patterns of collecting often rationalize as to why they determine upon this type of collecting and not that type of collecting, and why this particular collectible and not some other. Usually, they are well motivated. This rationalization is correctly the raison d’être of their modus operandi in this regard. An aspect that differentiates the mere ‘hoarder of objects’ from a ‘connoisseur of collectibles’. It would appear, thus, that although well-intentioned their motivation still needs a process of rationalization as to why they collect, what they collect and how much should they collect? We certainly don’t need a house full of clocks, six motor bikes, one thousand silk ties and four thousand bottles of premium wine. Or do we? At least the collector must feel the need for such an excessive accumulation of possessions otherwise they might swing into a divesting mode if they were able to overcome the psychic inertia necessary in order to dispose of that collection. If you owned an extensive fine collection of silver would you want to clean it every month or two, or, be prepared to pay some poor soul to do that task for you on a regular basis? (7)

	The owner of those four thousand bottles of wine died. At least his friends enjoyed a wonderful wake. What use were those bottles of wine to that owner when he was alive and did not get to sample those remaining in his collection. Let us virtually call forth this spirit and ask him “why four thousand bottles?” Was he an alcoholic laying in a lifetime store of supply - obviously not as he exceeded the number needed! No, I think his answer would be something like this, that he might answer in the following manner in order to defend himself. “With particular menus I like the ability to choose a wine from a number of possible options. Those four thousand bottles represented possible choices, something I enjoyed having. Furthermore, as much as I enjoyed drinking wine in reasonable quantities, a large number of those bottles also represented a considerable investment that grew in value year by year and actually paid for, if only on paper, those bottles of wine that were consumed. I am happy my friends enjoyed some of that vintage but most of the bottles were auctioned off and the money given, as per the instructions in my last will and testament, to the nominated charitable organization that attends to the treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics.” (8)

	I know a friend who had thirty three recorded versions of his favourite opera. In seeking a definitive version of that opera he has found thirty three that came a long way in achieving that, but, obviously, there is as yet for him no definitive version, or, a version good enough for him to dispose of the other thirty three productions. To this collector each one of those versions of this opera has a degree of aesthetic merit that to his ears motivates him to both retain what he has and, yet, to still seek further a field. However, is this quest for an intrinsic, aesthetic merit an adequate explanation of what motivates a collector to collect objects of a certain type? Rhetorically, let me ask what aesthetic merit propels collectors to drool over a small, rather dirty coloured, Victorian stamp, originally worth only one penny and now assessed in value in five figures or more…? (9) 

	When many people are strongly motivated to want the same thing and when there are few of those desired objects available in the marketplace they quickly become very valuable as long as that fashion in collecting lasts. Collecting is usually a social phenomenon. Collectors more often than not enjoy showing off their collections. The people that they find most interested in their collecting habits are usually fellow collectors. These people usually enjoy researching those items and sharing that information, making comparisons, discussing availability and price, etc. Hence we can assume that there is an economy of collecting, that for the most part collectibles are part of that economy when more than one person desires a certain type of object and more than one instance of the same. We must also assume that this economy of collection is also an economy of desire, the level and nature of that desire, its ‘temperature’, effecting the manner of the distribution and re-distribution of that type of collectible. Furthermore, this economy is a subset in the wider economy of collecting and, thence, in the world economy in general. (10)

	On the surface collecting appears to be a very rational type of enterprise. However, this need for rationalization in the formulation of what is to be desired, how that desire is to be realized and in defending those choices before others and one’s own sense of self, hints at darker, less rational levels of operation. Obviously, intrinsic worth cannot be the real raison d’être in this type of intentionally rationalized process? Moreover, as a general rule, processes of rationalization are usually not very adequate explanations of why you are motivated in that particular manner. More often than not, though, they usually articulate your current game plan as to how the collector is going to hopefully proceed in the further pursuit of their collection. Why buy for a large sum of money a small postage stamp that was originally worth a penny and may have already been used?! But that stamp is currently ‘lacking’ in your collection. It is almost as if this economy of distinctive absences motivates the collector to fill in the ‘gaps felt to be present’ through further acquisitions. And so the process continues. Indeed, why stop at just one item if you can obtain and enjoy more of the same or similar? In this light then, ends too are often not as rationally pre-determined as might at first appear, and, overall, just what is sacrificed for this economy of collecting is also further evidence that this outwardly very rational process of pursuit is not as it might seem? Would I be correct here? Why indulge in an economy of collecting in the first place when it places some considerable demands on the overall personal economy of that collector, and thence can easily adversely influence the nature of their economic interactions with the rest of their immediate family, friends, etc., whenever conducted in a relatively excessive fashion? (11)

	Lastly, let me examine what processes of value, personal valuation, seem to operate in this type of economy and examine the place they have in the ‘apparently’ rational nature of this type of enterprise? Collecting is a habitual process, one that conditions the collector to continue in taking the same type of course in their passage through this World-of-Life. Collecting also appears to be defining the individual since collecting, normally, is very much a social phenomenon. The collecting psyche is first demonstrated in young children. Through habit it can then remain as a pattern of behaviour throughout our adult life despite self-testimony to an insight that bluntly informs us that collecting carried to excess is just not a rational enterprise despite the often well-calculated nature of its superficial operations in the market-pace. This insightfulness is often joked about between collectors. Do I need another CD? Do I need one more pair of shoes? I only have one left foot and one right foot! But I enjoy listening to new CD’s. I enjoy having a range of possibilities in footwear! Still, no adequate reason could be given when supply excessively exceeds a reasonable level of demand? We can only listen to one CD in any period of time and only wear one pair of shoes! The value of collecting is again, as noted, more of a social phenomenon. In the social context of our collecting we attempt to write, and continually re-write, our own sense of self(-worth) realized, wittingly or unwittingly, through the intentional thematization of those desires directed into the world-before-others. Usually, I believe, those desires are limited and scoped being written only in a possible economy of acquisition or, at least, a closely conceived possibility of economic acquisition. I remember a very successful dealer once showing me a hidden case of extremely rare Chinese ceramics. I was able to correctly tell him what they were, piece by piece, and I also had a very good idea of what they were currently worth if put up for auction in the best auction houses. But, and this surprised me, the only object in that box that I had the remotest feelings of ‘an acquisitive lustfulness’ was the least expensive item in that box – a blanc de chine figurine of a type that I had already hoped to purchase one day and which I duly did, as fate would have it, from this same dealer, but, I must add, purchasing another piece a bit more down market and well within my price range. A piece that still gives me much enjoyment. It also gives me pleasure showing it to other connoisseurs of Chinese ceramics as it has been much admired. A self-awareness of all this at least saves me from the charge that I am being completely irrational despite choices and processes of rationalization that do not appear to be perfectly rational! Thus, I must conclude that we have here an insightful paradigm into the nature of mind where we should regard its ‘normal’ operation as between the impossible goal of a perfect rationality and the equally impossible goal of an absolute irrationality since to be at either end of this spectrum would equally implicate a psychosis in some form or other and mean I could no longer so appropriately function as a person in this everyday world. (12)

	What other comments can we make about this phenomenon of collecting? For a start the collecting of antiquities, antiques and collectibles is more a recurring phenomenon. Often in the past only contemporary status artifacts were collected by some of the members of wealthier, dominant elites to be disposed of when the dictates of the latest fashion called for a re-direction in the iconic nature of such expensive contemporary status items. That the collection of non-contemporary status artifacts may well have had a scholarly foundation and core dynamic revealed through the publications of scholars and connoisseurs. Current tastes privileging those iconic artifacts from those cultures and cultural periods relatively more admired by those elites; this taste then radiating to some extent out into the rest of society. In some strange manner those icons might well be regarded as putting us virtually in direct ‘contact’ with the admired ethos culturally stamped upon those desired artifacts. Hence questions of authenticity must play an important part in this economy of acquisition although reproductions of those symbolically treated cultural representations are also accepted to a lesser degree when circulated as proxies; the more skillfully re-produced copies usually demanding a better price (although normally below the value of authentic items). The current value or ‘temperature’ of collectibles taking into account the currency of such desire, iconic status, condition, rarity, age of manufacture, authenticity, provenance, signature, etc., etc. (13)

Conclusion

	Let me conclude this essay on one final reflection and re-consider the question “should we or should we not try to be perfectly rational?” An attempt to be more reasonable is one thing, but, any attempt to seek a perfectly rational exercise of our lives is just not obtainable and can only deliver, in proportional measure, endless suffering! Being relatively rational means exercising choices! It should not mean being ‘perfectly rational’ because the way we evaluate choices, through our own individually assumed hierarchy of privilege and bias, ensures that this process is just not an absolutely rational enterprise; being more, therefore, a mater of taste and perceived ‘need’. In this world we have many masters and mistresses, and, how we exercise our navigation through this maze of competing claims and counter-claims is not actually a rational affair. Rationality is only a retrospective and/or prospective rationalization of why we adopt and adapt this course of action or inaction and not this or that other course of action or inaction, and, what courses of action or inaction we might soon be aiming for. In hindsight we may or may not have taken this or that path and that even hindsight itself is exercised in exactly the same manner, i.e., through a process of retrospective rationalization as to why we have or will adopt and adapt a certain style of intentional resolution! There is also an impossible to perform reflexive dimension here that cuts across such a misguided absolute claim: “today I am going to be absolutely rational… I am going to be absolutely rational in my examination of my being absolutely rational… I am going to be absolutely rational in my examination of my being absolutely rational, etc., etc.” To merely decide to be absolutely rational means we have no intentional resources left to be rational, and, if we are going to be reasonable here then we cannot devote one hundred percent of that intentional economy to this desire to be absolutely rational. No, we have to get on with the job and do the best we can within our limited intentional economy! We should devote some of our attention to being rational, and we do that through being intentionally directed in a comprehensive examination of the ramifications of our intentions to the extent that that is pragmatically possible (considered in a pre-intentional, non-intentionally objective mode) (before actualizing this through an intentional process directed towards an intentional objective) (which, then, treated as a set of post-intentions teleologically drives further pre-intentional aspirations, etc.) but in this or any other assessment we cannot devote all our resources to this impossible task since to do that would, itself, be quite irrational (through not being able to circulate our intentions pre-conditionally, conditionally and post-conditionally). What we must realize here is that the world is filled with different styles of rationality, different rationalities, and that we should welcome such diversity and engage it through thorough dialogue whenever it promises to reward us in that type of endeavour; a process already underway in and through our recognition of the relatively limited rationality of others! Correctly, we live in a complex super-economy of rationalities and that the world is an infinitely richer place for such an intersecting diversity. That to rationally purify this richly interacting diversity and seek the mind-numbing blandness of one’s own limited vision of this World-of-Life would be to only inflict an inestimable degree of suffering not only upon others but also upon one’s own sense of self. In this Contemporary Era, with an increasing emphasis upon a pluralistic diversity, let me say “vive les différences!” (14)
							         Noël Tointon, Sydney, 24.9.04.
Outline of the Arguments Against Absolute Rationality (and Absolute Irrationality)

1.	Absolute rationality denied: (Paragraphs No. 1, etc.)

		i.	Cannot be formulated (epistemologically), (1)
		ii.	Cannot be recognized (ontologically), (1)
		iii.	Cannot be absolutely rational and consistent in what we do and 
say. (2)

1.1.	Someone who tries to be absolutely rational is: (1)

		i.	Dangerous to others and self, (1, 2, 14)
		ii. 	Causes suffering in wake of effort to be absolutely rational, (14)
		iii.	Usually sacrificing means for ends, (1)
		iv.	Such a project distorts their perception, etc., (2)
		v.	Someone who is chasing an illusory objective, (2)
		vi.	Is being unreasonable. (3, 14)

1.2.	Denial of absolute rationality does not imply absolute irrationality. (3)

1.2.1.	Denial of absolute rationality does not mean we should not try to become more rational. (2)

2.	Collectors appear to be very rational, very intentionally determined  - meaning:
										       (6, 7, 11)
i.	‘Clear’ in their intentions as to what to collect, (3)
ii.	‘Successful’, more often than not, in their acquisitions, (6.7)
iii.	Large numbers of people collect things regardless of status, (4)
iv.	They enjoy choice, (8)
v.	Aware of absences in their collection. (11)

2.1.1.	But, rationalization of the collecting project can be used as evidence that the collecting project is not as rational as it might first seem because: (3, 6, 7, 8-12)

i.	Explanations of rationalization often appear inadequate, (3)
ii.	May become divestors, (5)
iii.	Why this type of collectible, why this collectible, how many? When to stop? (7)
iv.	Only a habit, (12)
v.	Almost impossible to assess rarity, condition, fluctuations in demand, fashion, (need not be driven by “aesthetics,” etc.), (9, 13)
vi.	A product of taste, and artificially manufactured need, (14)
vii.	Excessive obsession produces a pseudo-psychosis, (12)
viii.	Limited intentional economy, (14)
ix.	Can’t adequately explain starts/changes in collecting style/s. (14)