RUTH BARCAN MARCUS AND MODALITY (11): Rational Selves

Marcus now wants to understand how rationality is connected to the self, the person who thinks, chooses, believes, and feels. She has argued that reason is unified, that belief has structure, and that moral commitment shapes action. Now she turns to the question of what kind of self can support this unified rational life. Her aim is to show that rationality is grounded in the structure of a person. She says a person is not just a bundle of disconnected feelings, beliefs, and desires. A person has a point of view that lasts over time. A person remembers, anticipates, regrets, hopes, and plans. This continuity gives shape to the self and also gives shape to rationality. If we were not continuous beings, our reasoning would have no anchor. We would not be committed to anything. We would not feel responsibility for past or future actions. Rationality depends on the fact that the self carries its commitments forward.

Marcus then points out that the self is also the source of agency. Agency means the ability to act and to see oneself as the author of one’s actions. If you act, you normally believe that you are the one doing it and that you can answer for it. Rationality involves understanding this connection between yourself and your actions. This is why she says rationality is tied to what you see yourself as able to do and responsible for doing. Identity across time is important here. Objects keep their identity despite change. Marcus shows that something similar is true of people. You can change your views, learn new things, forget old things, grow taller, cut your hair, and still remain the same person. This continuing identity allows you to have long term commitments. Without this, rationality would collapse into short term impulses. A theory of rationality must therefore include a picture of what it means to be the same self over time.This leads her to talk about the importance of memory. Memory links past and present. If you remember a promise you made yesterday, that promise can guide what you do today. Memory lets you learn from experience, revise beliefs, and understand regret. Marcus says memory is part of the rational structure of the self. Without memory, reasoning would lack depth. Beliefs would not accumulate. Commitments would not endure. Regret would be impossible. Responsibility would vanish. Rationality would be flat.

She then introduces the idea that the self is organised around a set of central commitments. We've seen this idea of commitment discussed earlier when she discusses ethics. These commitments form the core of your moral and practical identity. They are not momentary preferences. They are guiding principles such as honesty, fairness, loyalty, compassion, or respect for others. Commitments shape what you see as possible. Commitments also shape the self itself. A person becomes who they are through the commitments they adopt and maintain. These commitments unify the self across time and also unify reason across its different forms. She explains that when a commitment is strong enough, it influences belief, emotion, action, and choice. For example, if you are deeply committed to helping others, you will form beliefs about what help is needed, feel emotions in response to others’ distress, make choices that reflect your concern, and guide your actions accordingly. Marcus says this shows that rationality flows through the entire structure of the self. It is not limited to one department of the mind.

Some philosophers fear that if commitments are too central, the self becomes rigid or unfree. Marcus disagrees. She says that a self without commitments is empty, not free. Commitments are not chains. They provide direction. They give meaning to choice. Without commitments, choices become arbitrary. Rationality needs commitments to make sense of life. She then draws a connection to belief revision. Earlier she said that rationality includes the willingness to change one’s mind. She adds that belief revision must fit into the larger structure of the self. When you revise a belief, you must take into account not only the new evidence but also your existing commitments. You do not wipe out your identity with each new discovery. Rational change is thoughtful change. It respects the continuity of the self. Marcus also examines the role of emotion again, but now at the level of personal identity. Emotions express what matters to you. Guilt shows that you recognise you acted against a commitment. Regret shows that you valued something you lost. Admiration shows that a value has been touched. Fear can reveal a danger to something you care about. Marcus says emotions are woven into the rational self because they reveal its structure. They show which commitments lie at its centre. She explains that rationality includes an ability to reflect on oneself. Reflection means stepping back from your immediate thoughts and asking: Why do I believe this? Why do I feel this? Why did I choose that? Reflection is how the self monitors and improves its own reasoning. Marcus thinks reflection is one of the strongest signs that reason and selfhood belong together. Reflection allows you to revise beliefs, strengthen commitments, correct mistakes, and plan for the future. Without reflection, rationality would be blind.

The resulting self is an active and structured centre of rational life. It holds together beliefs, emotions, memories, commitments, and choices. In this way she argues that rationality is not separate from the self. It is the way the self organises its life and its understanding. Some theories picture the self as a neutral observer. Marcus rejects this. She says the self is always involved, always committed, always oriented by values. Rationality must reflect that.