I'm the first to admit that I'm not entirely rational: I make impulsive decisions, act without thinking... and even when I think through decisions, I often find myself looking back not long afterwards and thinking that was a daft thing to do. I end up spending more time on the computer than I should, making unhealthy food choices, buying things which are more expensive than they should be, occasionally upsetting people through careless words, etc. Psychologists have identified all sorts of ways in which people are not rational: biases such as "confirmation bias", and thing such as post-hoc rationalisation (making up the reasons for doing it afterwards). There is even a subfield in economics, "behavioural economics", which tests how people behave on the basis that people don't always behave how we think they "rationally" should. For centuries, though, Western economics was based on the idea of "rational man": free, autonomous agents who always act in their best interests (even if that sometimes includes a dose of "selfish" altruism!). What distinguishes Western philosophy from all other traditions historically is its reliance solely on reason as the tool for arguments in philosophy. Other philosophical traditions, such as those from India and China, also employ reason, but give more weight to intuition, experience of reality and to the wisdom of ancestors. Broadly speaking, they are less individualistic, putting more emphasis on communal aspects. By contrast, Western philosophy seeks truths that are objectively true, always and everywhere. It seems to look for truths which do not depend of the individual, because everyone's perspective must bend to undeniable logic. This faith, that much of the West seems to have in our ability to act as rational, autonous agents seems to underpin many of the things which are cherished in the West, such as human rights, democracy and individual accountability before the law. In this enquiry, we'll ask whether these ideas lose any of

Description supplied by the event organiser.