The triumph of irrationality

Right Reason
    By Matthew G. Alexander

The most enlightened people on New Year's Eve were those born in the 19th century and those who govern Cuba. At a time when most everybody was concentrating on the future, the only people to realize that a new millennium did not dawn on Jan. 1, 2000 were those clinging to one of the old millennium's most thoroughly backward political systems and those alive 100 years ago.

Indeed, in 1900 the New York Times recorded that New Year's celebrations were exciting but restrained, because people understood that the New Year was not the first of the 20th century, but the last of the 19th. Likewise, Granma, the Cuban Communist Party's newspaper, affirmed that the new millennium begins next year, because the first millennium began with the Year One.

Despite this clear truth of simple arithmetic, CNN televised two days worth of lavish "millennium" celebrations, just because all four digits changed. While this issue may seem trivial at first, it exemplifies two unfortunate trends in the way people of this modern age view truth and fact.

The American founding fathers understood one limitation of democracy to be, in the words of James Madison, "that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice...but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Madison also would have understood that not only could decisions of the majority be unjust, they could also be factually incorrect. In other words, just because something enjoys majority approbation does not necessarily mean that it is right. At first glance, it might certainly appear that a millennium changes when all of the digits turn over, and in any event, most people found the dramatic change of numbers that this year would bring compelling. Therefore, when it came to deciding that the millennium would change at the year 2000, the majority willed it thus.

Certainly some of the 2000 euphoria was the product of ignorance, but the truth was well-publicized. The reaction of the majority—to continue calling 2000 the millennium despite the facts—reflects a second modern attitude toward the truth—relativism, or the belief that truth is individual rather than universal, and that what is true is what feels right to any particular person or group.

The two reactions to the news that the true millennium begins in 2001 were denial and the assertion that, for those who believed otherwise, "their millennium" could begin next year. That, of course, is preposterous since the calendar is not based on personal opinions, but is, rather, an objective means of organizing time.

This sort of relativism points to nothing other than a breakdown in the traditional conceptions of reason and truth. No longer is truth seen as something universal that can be discerned through rational discourse and supported by objective facts. Most people were presented with coherent arguments for the correct change of the millennium, yet nevertheless continued to deny the necessary conclusion because of personal feelings. Such is the triumph of irrationality.

Relativism often finds its way into more significant areas of public concern, such as the abortion debate. A common retort to pro-life arguments is "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one." In a similar fashion, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart recently condemned Southern Baptists as purveyors of "ancient religious hatred" because they had the temerity to share their beliefs with others.

Therefore, for the sake of restoring the virtue of reason as one of the defining attributes of man, let us celebrate the new millennium next year.

Back to Opinion...