From my brief exposure to philosophy, the rational actor seems to be the sole subject of discourse. Irrationality is treated at best as a footnote or at worst as a some sort of Lovecraftian horror. It is definitely pervasive, I doubt that any individual would convincingly contend that he has attained a level of cognition rivaling Spock. Irrationality isn’t simply a consequence of human nature but a required aspect of it.
First off let’s visit the definition doldrums and hammer out what exactly rationality and creativity are. Dictionary.com, such an illustrious source, has seven definitions for rationality; most of which involve the terms ‘reason’ and ‘reasonable’. I want to go a bit further and say that a process is rational if it is a finite sequence of steps that are valid according to some consistent logic. An irrational process is then one that is not rational. Creativity is defined as, “The ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.” (www.dictionary.com, accessed 7/14/2016).
I would like to present the following argument that irrationality is a required aspect of human nature:
1) No creative process is rational.
2) Creative processes are a required aspect of human nature.
3) Therefore, irrational processes are a required aspect of human nature.
Defense of 1:
If a creative process is rational, then there exists a consistent logic and a finite sequence of steps in that logic that derives this creative process from an existing process. This then requires that this creative process is equivalent to that process (according to the logic whose existence was asserted). But, if this creative process is equivalent to a previous process, it is by definition not new and not creative.
Defense of 2:
This one is pretty easy to defend, humanity without creativity is without the arts and sciences.
If the above argument is correct there is a lot of previous theories that have to be reexamined. Can Virtue Ethics withstand scrutiny if its virtuosic individuals need to be irrational? Surely a virtuosic individual needs to be creative. Given the necessity of irrationality doesn’t this directly conflict with The Kantian Perspective? How does an Objectivist evaluate the actions of an irrational actor?