Rationality

In one sense of the word all men are rational, and therefore it seems odd to

argue that education should be concerned to make men rational. It was

Aristotle who first defined man as a rational animal, and he meant by this

that man was to be distinguished from other animals in that he had the

ability to think, calculate or reason. Other animals can respond to their

environment, they can sense the heat from flames, for example, and

withdraw from the fire. Instinctively they can seek shelter in appropriate

places from bad weather or from enemies. Not only do they come to

respond in a regular manner to specific signals, but they can also be

conditioned by man to respond to artificial signals. The wild animal senses

his prey and automatically responds with the appropriate hunting

behaviour. The dog, taken over as a household pet, automatically responds

to certain food-preparing activities on the part of the owner. In extreme

cases, as in Pavlov’s experiments, the animal is conditioned to respond to

signals such as the ringing of a bell. But what animals cannot do is act

purposively. They cannot – or so we tend to believe1 – decide to do this

rather than that on certain grounds, they cannot work out what is going on,

or reflect upon the possibility that the ringing bells may be part of some

experiment on their behaviour. Man differs from other animals in that he

is able to act purposively, to plan, choose ends and adopt means, and in that

he is able to control his environment rather than simply respond to it. He

is able to memorize, to imagine, foresee, to predict, to hypothesize. To use

the imprecise term which in common language includes all such activities,

man has the capacity to think.