Reply to mrnormal5150 It's pragmatic. It would be, at best, very difficult to effectively communicate, build trust, and prioritize or achieve personal goals if not. I don't see how you could function as an irrational human
Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons?
I don't want to get in an argument about definitions here, but I like to make a distinction between "rational" and "reasonable." Yes, I know, they are used as synonyms and I'm not trying to rewrite the dictionaries. I've referring to two modes of argument:
What I call rationality - following a formal process with well defined rules to establish facts, investigate ideas, and establish truth.
What I call reasonableness - I look at reason as a more open process. It allows a broader discussion among people who have more fundamental disagreements. I'd say the hallmarks are a general set of agreed on rules to guide the presentation of ideas, a desire to understand the other person's point of view, an openness to being convinced, an agreed on method to determine the soundness of an argument, and lots of other huggy, kissy characteristics.
Being rational does not mean an argument cannot also be reasonable.
And then, of course, there's rhetoric - do what you need to do to win the argument. There's a lot of that on the forum.
All appeal to reasons and causes is a form of rationality. Rationality is a measuring (ratio) of ideas against experience, and our pre-reflective understandings of ourselves and nature.
What is considered to be rational at a given time in history is another matter; that is based on what is most generally taken for granted at the time. To think rationally is to be mindful of any tendency towards contradiction, inconsistency and incoherency. It might still be rational to be contradictory inconsistent and incoherent, but only if you are aware of it and you have a very good reason. :wink:
To think rationally is also to be aware of the psychological tendencies most of us have to indulge in confirmation bias, and wishful thinking. The philosopher Bernard Lonergan says that true understanding involves a four-fold process of being attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible. If you wanted to be inattentive, unintelligent, unreasonable and irresponsible you would need a very good reason to justify that. :wink:
On the other hand the living of life does not consist in following some set of rationally derived rules, because rationality may fall into generalization, whereas the living of life is a singular event, which is the undergoing of, and participation in, a unique series of singular events.
The answer appears to be that rationality is justified with intuition; which is faith based and therefore arguably an irrational decision.
I disagree with this. Intuition is not "faith based" unless you mean something different from "intuition" than the dictionary and I do. Definition from the web - "The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning." Most of the decisions we make are not made on the basis of "conscious reasoning." That doesn't mean they aren't made on the basis of experience, understanding, and sound decision making. I think you've got it backwards, rationality is what we use after we've made a decision in order to justify it. That doesn't mean rationality doesn't have a useful role, but it isn't driving the bus.
The problem is, if you rely on rational reasoning to justify rationality, this is offering a circular argument
I have been troubled by this for a long time without making any real progress.
1. A while ago someone posted a thread on the difference between benign and vicious circularity. I think the the self-supporting nature of logic, the evident circularity in having to appeal to reason to justify reason, is a benign circularity.
I think the basic syllogism works like this:
1. If logic is justified then predictions it makes must come true
2. Predictions it makes are true
Therefore
3. Logic is justified
The fallacy the argument commits, per logic itself, is that of affirming the consequent.
But there are countless situations where logic's predictions come true. The numbers are significant enough to compensate for the fallacious reasoning (some may disagree).
Yeah this is the interesting bit. Because that is to put trust in the past as though the present has to conform to what has happened previously. And also what do we consider a significant amount exactly? Where is the line between what is significant enough to justify that trust in something compared to when we shouldn’t? This all seems to suggest a faith based response to rationality.
Look at it another way...
May be it isn't circular as it initially appears to be.
Logic demands that we have reasons to support beliefs.
What of our belief in the ability of logic to find truths? Doesn't that need justification?
Yes, it surely does BUT this isn't circular in the manner of a bad argument. Logic isn't saying ''I'm true because I'm true''. That would be a vicious circularity.
Instead logic is saying ''I'm looking in the mirror of my own making and ensuring my own worth.''
Self-reflection is better than self-aggrandizing.
In a way, the ability of logic to find fault with itself is a plus point rather than a damning flaw.
Would you say that your response here is fundamentally an appeal to the irrational to justify being rational? I don’t mean that in any derogatory way. I like how you put it. But it appears to be that for something to be ‘appealing’,as you put it, is a response to the emotional experience of something feeling appealing. This isn’t something that is itself reasoned. But rather it comes across as intuitive.
I don't think that feelings are irrational, tout court. If your life is in danger it makes sense that you
fear. If your loved one is in the hospital it makes sense that you worry. If you achieve something you care about then it makes sense that you feel accomplished.
So, no, I don't think that this is irrational. It's just consistent -- these are a couple of reasons why we provide reasons. And I'd say that my response describes how rationality works, too. One, it is nice to hear why someone believes as they do -- else I'll just stick to the beliefs I happen to have, since there is no moving from one belief to another by some means which allows different persons to consider them. And two, we move our beliefs because some justification is persuasive -- which itself only makes sense to me in terms of aesthetics.
1. If logic is justified then predictions it makes must come true
2. Predictions it makes are true
Therefore
3. Logic is justified
The fallacy the argument commits, per logic itself, is that of affirming the consequent.
Are you quite clear what you want to argue here and what you don't?
How would you feel about this same argument with the first premise replaced by its converse? Or replaced by a biconditional? The one would be valid, but maybe not what you want to say. The other only "partially" valid.
I agree that it doesn’t mean they aren’t made on the basis of experience, but that can’t be said for every case of intuitive response. Nor does intuition necessarily imply understanding even if it does in some cases, but rather it’s the feeling of having an understanding rather than knowing one has an understanding.
This is not my experience. Consciousness does not drive the mind, it follows along with a notebook and writes things down. Most of the work of of thinking takes place in the background and pops up when it's needed. Of course intuition can be wrong, lead to bad decisions, so can rationality. They're really just two sides of the same process. You can't have reason without what we are calling intuition. Feeling that I know and knowing are the same experience.
You still haven’t explained how any of this doesn’t constitute as faith. The definition of faith is: “Complete trust, belief or confidence in someone or something without a proof.”
Intuition doesn't imply "complete trust or confidence" any more than rational knowledge does. Knowing something is not a matter of being certain, it's a matter of being confident enough in your understanding that you can justify making a particular decision consistent with the possible consequences of your action. That never calls for "complete trust or confidence," primarily because it's impossible to find that.
We do the best we can.
When you act on intuition you are not consciously recalling past experiences; or confirming you actually do understand; or making the effort to make sure there are valid and true premises leading to the conclusion. Intuition is to skip the reasoning, forgoe the premises and act based on a conclusion you trust to be the right conclusion without reference to a proof.
I'm an civil/environmental engineer. I've worked on at least 200 sites where there was contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater. My job is to figure out how to clean it up. When I get involved in a new site, I almost always can tell you within a couple of hours of reviewing existing information what the best way of dealing with it will be. Often that's based on little site-specific information. Obviously, that's not enough to go on - there is more review, research, and study needed before we can decide to move forward, but 30 years of experience allows me to focus on the important aspects of the problem. Almost none of this thinking is what you would call consciously rational. After spending time with the data, those of us involved in the job will get together talk. That's probably the first time what we are doing is really what I would call rational. We have to put it into words to communicate with others. In a sense, rationality and putting things into words are the same process. None of this has anything to do with faith.
I certainly stand by explanation of intuition as being related to faith based decisions, and don’t think you’ve sufficiently explained why that isn’t the case.
It isn't the case, at least for me, because I spend a lot of time trying to be aware of my thinking process and, based on that self-awareness, what you describe is not what happens. My view is not an idiosyncratic one, lots of psychologists and philosophers hold similar views.
I think you've got it backwards, rationality is what we use after we've made a decision in order to justify it.
Did I misunderstand you? When you say "rationality is justified with intuition" to me that means rationality comes first. When I say "rationality is what we use after we've made a decision" I mean that what we are calling intuition comes first.
Are you asking for a rational justification for being rational? Isn't that circular?
No. I'm asking for a reason to be rational. I'm wondering if people think of rationality as normative. It would be circular if one adopted a reason-loaded conception of rationality, which I'm leaving open-ended.
What other definition of rationality is there apart from having reasons?
One that doesn't have to do with reasons. A rather intuitive one is the view that rationality is a property of persons; it supervenes on the mental. If two individuals in different universes are mentally equivalent, then they both have the same degree of rationality. Under the assumption we can be mistaken about reasons, if I mistakenly think a murderer is in my house, truly genuinely believe it, and I do not wish to die, then it is rational for me to try to escape whether or not I actually have a reason to escape. I can lack a reason to act and be rationally permitted to act. It is also rather natural for us to say that I would be irrational if I did not intend to escape given my beliefs and desires, because rationality, according to this conception, is more a matter of consistency between our beliefs, intended goals, etc., and not actual reasons.
Reply to mrnormal5150 I suppose "having reasons" can have multiple interpretations. In the coherence sense, one is rational if one acts according to reasons that, regardless of their reality, cohere with the rest of a person's beliefs and desires. But they still do have reasons, they still act upon a hypothetical imperative. The goal is set, the rules are placed and the act is set in motion.
Of course this leads to a general issue facing coherentism, that a matrix of beliefs may cohere well but have no basis in reality, i.e. the logic is valid but the premises are false. To ground the normativity of rationality seems to require that the premises be true - otherwise the rationality is arbitrary. The rules are set up, and the agent follows them correctly, but they don't really mean anything. Kant seems to bring this point up when he discusses the rationality of morality, and how it chills us to the bone to see twisted, evil people act with cold "rationality". They have rationality in terms of hypothetical imperatives because they act upon maxims, but in terms of categorical imperatives they have an absence of rationality. Immoral acts are thus always irrational acts.
Nietzsche, I believe, critiques this sort of rationalism; there cannot be any reasons to be moral, since we can always push the question back further. Why should you not lie? Because that is immoral. But why should you be moral? Because that's what morality asks. But why should we follow morality? The meta-normative question exceeds the bounds of morality. Later certain British intuitionists tried to avoid this problem by denying the regress and affirming that there is no meta-normative question, that morality just is binding and to ask "why be moral?" is to ask a malformed question. Anyway I think this may be relevant to the current discussion. If morality is aligned with rationality, so that what is rational is also what is moral, then the question "why be moral" is eclipsed by the question "why be rational?"
The question "why be rational?", though, is a meta-rational question, no? Is it not asking for reasons to be rational?
Having not consciously reasoned is no different than saying that no reasoning has taken place, but to put trust in ones own ability to get to the right conclusions without making the effort to check if it’s actually the case. This trust in oneself without the proof, is what I am constituting as faith and is why intuitions can sometimes be wrong and that trust one puts in oneself can be misplaced.
However all kinds of antecedent reasonings, one's own as well as the pre-reflectively introjected reasonings of others, go to make up the constitution of the affective self which one may put trust in without further conscious reasoning.
The question "why be rational?", though, is a meta-rational question, no? Is it not asking for reasons to be rational?
I think it is just a rational question, perhaps the primary one; but then I don't believe in any kinds of 'meta-questions'. Refusing to be rational obviously cannot be justified on purely rational grounds, but it might be justified, as a temporary disposition and/or within restricted contexts, on emotional, psychological,or even ethical or aesthetical, grounds. I think this is precisely in line with Kant's point about the distinction between pure and practical reason. Such a justification would still be rational, though, only it would not be 'rationality for rationality's sake', so to speak.
In the coherence sense, one is rational if one acts according to reasons that, regardless of their reality, cohere with the rest of a person's beliefs and desires.
I think this is a plausible analogy. There are many senses to the word reason. An exhaustive taxonomic breakdown may be too much to ask for, but I think what you point out is relevant to the question. Sometimes we ask for the reason why someone did something, and all we are looking for is what motivated them. Other times we are looking for a justification. When I think of normative reasons, it's the justificatory role that is primary. So in my example of a person (call him Joe) mistakenly believing a murderer was in his house, one could respond that Joe was responding to "reasons", and what we mean by that is Joe was responding to what Derek Parfit called apparent reasons. Still, this would be an example in which rationality is not tied to actual normative, justifying reasons.
The rules are set up, and the agent follows them correctly, but they don't really mean anything.
This has always bothered me, but I can't quite seem to figure out why I find this so bothersome. Do our intuitions demand rationality to be a thick concept that has a non-arbitrary connection with the world? Because my intuitions about that annoyingly oscillate back and forth. I guess I fear that if we make criteria for rationality external to mental processes then the criteria itself becomes arbitrary. How do we come to know which external criteria actually count as genuine requirements of rationality? To avoid that problem, I adopt a more limiting, less thick, conception of rationality, relegating it to consistency amongst beliefs, conative states, etc.
If morality is aligned with rationality, so that what is rational is also what is moral, then the question "why be moral" is eclipsed by the question "why be rational?"
I think what matters is how exactly morality is lined with rationality. If we think of morality as necessarily reason-generating (if something is morally wrong, then there is a reason not to do it), and if rationality is tracking actual reasons, then it would seem one must be moral to be rational. I personally don't think this is plausible, as it is way too demanding (unless of course we are ok with admitting we are all irrational and rationality is rarely, if ever, achieved). As a result, I reject the tie between rationality and reasons to avoid that issue. But even if true, I don't think this would replace the OP question, as one can still ask for actual reasons to be rational. I also don't think this question can be jettisoned as a failure to grasp the concepts involved.
Consciousness does not drive the mind, it follows along with a notebook and writes things down.
This is going to be a really random question. But are you Andy Clark? lol I think it unlikely as you said you were a civil engineer. But I'm still asking haha.
It depends on one's circumstance. Some creative people function excellently while tending to be largely irrational. Isn't that right MJ and Kanye?
Meanwhile, just one irrational astronaut could easily destroy billions of dollars' worth of equipment, not to mention wasting the passion and stress that large teams of people go into every major space project.
Are you quite clear what you want to argue here and what you don't?
How would you feel about this same argument with the first premise replaced by its converse? Or replaced by a biconditional? The one would be valid, but maybe not what you want to say. The other only "partially" valid.
Thank you. There are the following possibilities:
J=logic is justified
P=the predictions logic makes come true
1. J -> P
2. P -> J
3. J <-> P which is equivalent to (J -> P) & (P -> J)
2. is unacceptable because P is possible through mere coincidence.
The above objection also makes 3 unacceptable.
So, the only option is 1. J -> P = if logic is justified then the predictions logic makes come true.
Pattern-chaserJune 21, 2018 at 11:19#1898200 likes
Consciousness does not drive the mind, it follows along with a notebook and writes things down. — T Clark
This is a strange conception for me. Do you believe in free will or do you think we’re determined?
This wasn't directed at me, and I may have it all wrong, but I think this is meant to refer to the nonconscious mind, and how it (very) often makes the decisions. The conscious mind follows on a bit later (perhaps with its notebook, as described :grin: ), and pretends to itself that it is really in control. I don't think it refers to predestination. :chin:
2. is unacceptable because P is possible through mere coincidence.
True. It's also true that "If its predictions are accurate, then logic is justified" sounds more like a definition than anything else, that it says this is what we mean by "justified". Your syllogism, seen that way, is just figuring out whether the word "justified", so defined, applies to logic. And it does, despite the possibility that every test of logic has succeeded by the merest coincidence rather than because This Is How The World Is. Justification is for us, isn't it? Or were you thinking of some other meaning for "justification"?
It's also true that "If its predictions are accurate, then logic is justified" sounds more like a definition than anything else
By "justification" I mean sufficient reason to merit belief.
As you already know this basic principle (must have reason to believe in something) leads to a circularity when it comes to logic.
Question 1: Why believe in logic? Asking for justification for logic i.e. why should we believe logic is the correct method of thinking.
Any attempt to answer the question would begin with "BECAUSE..." and that is, obviously, presupposing logic is the correct method of thinking.
How do we escape this circularity. I suggested a syllogism and, as you have correctly pointed out, that is insufficient. I revisited the notion of justification for logic and I think the sound argument is given below:
L = Logic is justified
P = MANY or MOST or preferably ALL predictions of logic come true
Argument A
1. P -> L
2. P
Therefore
3. L
The premise 1 is justified because it is highly unlikely that ALL predictions of logic coming true by mere chance.
Reply to TheMadFool
Well, yeah, it would be quite a coincidence. I didn't see the need to labor the point. What you say here is what I was saying, so long as you take "tends to successfully predict" as the meaning of "justified". I think you probably should, because what else is there?
One main value of reason is as a means to communicate creative intuitions with others. In engineering school, during exams, one is not allowed to write the answer to a numerical answer question, without showing how you reached your conclusion. Reason is the bridge between the question and the answer, with the answer sometimes there, before the bridge. The professor asks the student to build a logical bridge and not just rely on instinct or intuition to get an answer, even if the answer is correct.
If you were alone, living off the land, you would learn to trust your instincts and intuitions, with a reason bridge not always needed. The answer is good enough. It is only you, and you can intuitively sense the answer. On the other hand, if you had a new idea for a business that would be successful, and you need the cooperation of others for resources, you will need logic to build a bridge, so the investors can see the other side of the gap. They cannot read your mind, to see and feel your intuition.
You were already there, on the other side, based on the intuition. But others will not come over unless the logic bridge spans the gap and seems sturdy. The creator may have to take time to translate the intuition into a logic bridge for others. He has the advantage of being able to build from two sides toward the middle.
Since logic can build bridges, sometimes you may have an intuition, but the answer is very fuzzy. Logic can be used to build a bridge with only one side anchored; question, and the other side sitting on sand.; answer. This is like a cavalier type bridge, that extends outward from the sturdy side and hopefully it reaches the other side before it shears and falls. Some rational bridge builders can cavalier long distances and reach a sturdy anchor point. Now the stress profile changes. It makes sense to others.
Reply to Greta Are there particular actions of Kanye that show irrationality?
Words he uses merely supports his way of selling and emphasizing his brand. It's the entertainment business. It appears to work for him so is possibly a rational business plan. Keeps his brand on the magazine covers.
Probably astute, more than anything.
Context: entertainment and publicity industry.
A Christian PhilosophyJune 23, 2018 at 20:33#1906240 likes
Why be rational? It is the starting point to epistemology. To side with Descartes, there are first principles which are simply indubitable. "If rational then true" and "If irrational then not true" are examples of these.
So you are not prepared to select one thing to back your statement other than link to a gossip mag?
We are conducting a lightweight and pointless conversation from which I have been keenly hoping to extricate myself so, in context, a gossip mag is an appropriate reference.
Having checked your postings I note that you are of the Trumpian faith, and thus would probably be about as responsive to rationality and reason as the man himself. This is not a meeting of the minds.
To act with rationality is often to adhere to human preconceptions and instincts. To find nourishment, we must act in a rational manner, rather than engaging in a series of frivolous noises or bravuras, which will not win for us a meal. Those overwhelming propensities for a crude jest serve socially, either to ostracise an enemy or to create a synergy between the exorbitant planes of discomfort which eld friends must traverse. To behave in a rational manner is to acknowledge cause and effect, and to act according to observations. When the eventual conditioning is completed, we know that we could not achieve our goals without making choices in accordance with cause and effect. When the imperfect knowledge which we incorporate into our schemas is revised, we create new models of cause and effect which to follow.
However, much of our reasons for rationalism or nonsense must be analyzed according to our definition of rationality.
DingoJonesSeptember 09, 2020 at 23:07#4508810 likes
Perhaps its because the current discussions going on are so poor and the topics so uninteresting one is forced to look among the unliving threads for something to discuss.
There are plenty of equally esoteric threads going on, but Ill concede theists have shitty arguments if thats what you mean. The line gets a bit blurry when the discourse has sunken into philosophical poverty like some of the current threads.
Deleted UserSeptember 10, 2020 at 14:59#4510980 likes
Well, I'm not - in the sense that it's not a binary thing. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. Further when I am not rational, this does not entail that am irrational - which is a pejorative term. It just means I arrived at choices through non-rational means. I don't reason my way to the toilet when I have to pee, and similar decisions are made through non-rational intuitive processes throughout my day. Many decisions I make socially are emotion driven, intuition driven decisions, not ones made via linear deductive, say, mental verbal processes. Of course I use rational processes also.
Even the choice of when to use rational means and when to follow intuition is generally not a rational choice. I make an intuitive choice. I also make an intuitive choice when I decide that my reasoning has been checked enough and it makes sense.
god must be atheistSeptember 11, 2020 at 23:21#4514380 likes
The problem is, if you rely on rational reasoning to justify rationality, this is offering a circular argument; using the conclusion as a premise to justify Itself.
True. Very true.
So to justify rationality, we will use irrationality. "We use rationality because clocks excrete shruppa warriors' toupees." Pronto, we have a much better supporting argument for rationality than rationality. I mean, how ever possibly can you argue against the claim?
Reply to Banno If more is imputed to theology than exercise of the metaphysical imagination and stimulation of aesthetic and moral feeling, then we see a descent into fundamentalist reification, and that is indeed "shite".
I think it's important to be rational when we can, despite most of our lives living fairly "irrationally." Rational planning out our lives and time, in accordance with the goals which we've concluded are what we want to achieve in life, certainly has a very real and very important role. I find it related to self-control in many ways.
Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons?
Yes, it is normative. Foundations are required in any inquiry. Rationality provides the foundation for an inquiry regarding existence, for example, or even for our everyday decision-making attempts.
TheMadFoolSeptember 12, 2020 at 06:39#4515290 likes
Reply to mrnormal5150 An old thread resurrected from the depths of the forum's archives. Anyway, giving it a second look, the notion of catch-22 popped into my. Catch-22 is a title of a book that's about a man who wants to avoid war duties by claiming to be insane (irrational) and the catch is attempting to do that is proof of his sanity (rationality), thereby making him fit for military service.
If anything, the book suggests that there are occasions when it's rational to be irrational - insanity, another word for irrationality, is a good [s]excuse[/s] reason to avoid certain responsibilities.
I think there can be instances where you can be calculatingly irrational but ultimately I find it subjective Suppose you are down, and are faced with either completing chores or staring at Netflix for 8 hours? The rational mind says 'fold the laundry's, 'empty the dishwasher' etc. But the irrational mind says 'keep watching' and which is best is dependent on the person doing it.
I suspect these situations come up all the time (in less dramatic fashion).
One situation is rational, and the other is irrational- it serves no purpose, except for the person doing it.
Jack CumminsOctober 20, 2020 at 16:01#4631010 likes
I think that we try to believe that we are rational but most of us are following the prompts of our subjective wishes, which are often far from rational. If anything, we try to justify our subjective intentions in a rational way as a means of self justification.
One possible means of living more rationally could be through cognitive behavioral therapy. I have never had CBT but have read a fair amount on the topic and did find that it helped me aware of inconsistencies in logic of my own interpretations of life experiences. If nothing else it is a means of exploring the lack of logic of one's own thinking in daily life.
Deleted UserOctober 22, 2020 at 07:51#4637960 likes
I think that we try to believe that we are rational but most of us are following the prompts of our subjective wishes, which are often far from rational. If anything, we try to justify our subjective intentions in a rational way as a means of self justification.
just like to introduce a third category - the non-rational. This would encompass the irrational, but since that is generally a pejorative term, I want a neutral term that would then also include neutral and positive choices and conclusions that are not arrived at rationally. IOW not arrived at through some logical, verbal process. Evolution seems to have selected for creatures (us I mean) who use a number of processes to arrive at choices and conclusions. 1) I can't see a way to avoid this, given how incredibly time consuming (and then also circular) it would be to arrive at everything using reason. 2) I think people can actually be quite good at non-rational processes. 3) Rational processes are dependent on non-rational processes. We are always deciding things like 'I have checked my reasoning enough' and 'I have a feeling I should check X again' and all sorts of time prioritization, focus prioritization, sense of the semantic scope of terms, interpretations of metaphors without analysis and more through non-reasoning 'feelings' 'intuition' 'gut senses' 'nagging doubts' 'sense of completenesses' and much more. We are mixed bags cognitively.
For nerd people like us, we use reason, or what we consider to be reason, because we were born in to brains with a built-in inclination towards such operations.
Deleted UserOctober 23, 2020 at 07:54#4640640 likes
Reply to Hippyhead But you were born with a brain that also had the inclination towards non-rational processes. Or you'd be a complete mess.
Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons?
Why be rational? If this query is posed by way of an inquiry into other possibilities, possibilities other than rational, then, in my humble opinion, there are [s]two[/s] three: 1. Irrational, 2. Arational, 3. Hyper-rational.
1. Irrational is simply breaking the rules of logic and critical thinking.
2. Arational is best explained with an analogy. In ethics we have the immoral (prohibited), the moral (mandatory) and the amoral (neither prohibited, nor mandatory) and that's all she wrote
3. Hyper-rational is a hypothetical state of mind that has access to new rules of logic that are, as of now, hidden from us. The key difference between rational and hyper-rational would be that the latter would be incomprehensible to the former. I suppose the sentence "there's a thin line between genius and madness" says it all.
Deleted UserOctober 23, 2020 at 14:34#4641490 likes
Reply to HippyheadThe women you've known all, every single one, said that you thought you were more rational than you were. So, I knew you were ok, you still ran, at least in part on intuition.
Comments (69)
I don't want to get in an argument about definitions here, but I like to make a distinction between "rational" and "reasonable." Yes, I know, they are used as synonyms and I'm not trying to rewrite the dictionaries. I've referring to two modes of argument:
What I call rationality - following a formal process with well defined rules to establish facts, investigate ideas, and establish truth.
What I call reasonableness - I look at reason as a more open process. It allows a broader discussion among people who have more fundamental disagreements. I'd say the hallmarks are a general set of agreed on rules to guide the presentation of ideas, a desire to understand the other person's point of view, an openness to being convinced, an agreed on method to determine the soundness of an argument, and lots of other huggy, kissy characteristics.
Being rational does not mean an argument cannot also be reasonable.
And then, of course, there's rhetoric - do what you need to do to win the argument. There's a lot of that on the forum.
All appeal to reasons and causes is a form of rationality. Rationality is a measuring (ratio) of ideas against experience, and our pre-reflective understandings of ourselves and nature.
What is considered to be rational at a given time in history is another matter; that is based on what is most generally taken for granted at the time. To think rationally is to be mindful of any tendency towards contradiction, inconsistency and incoherency. It might still be rational to be contradictory inconsistent and incoherent, but only if you are aware of it and you have a very good reason. :wink:
To think rationally is also to be aware of the psychological tendencies most of us have to indulge in confirmation bias, and wishful thinking. The philosopher Bernard Lonergan says that true understanding involves a four-fold process of being attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible. If you wanted to be inattentive, unintelligent, unreasonable and irresponsible you would need a very good reason to justify that. :wink:
On the other hand the living of life does not consist in following some set of rationally derived rules, because rationality may fall into generalization, whereas the living of life is a singular event, which is the undergoing of, and participation in, a unique series of singular events.
How do you fit those ideas in with your position on intuition, and pre-rationality (is that the word you recently used?) Just curious.
I disagree with this. Intuition is not "faith based" unless you mean something different from "intuition" than the dictionary and I do. Definition from the web - "The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning." Most of the decisions we make are not made on the basis of "conscious reasoning." That doesn't mean they aren't made on the basis of experience, understanding, and sound decision making. I think you've got it backwards, rationality is what we use after we've made a decision in order to justify it. That doesn't mean rationality doesn't have a useful role, but it isn't driving the bus.
The last paragraph, which I was adding as you responded, should answer that, I think. :smile:
:up: Sounds a bit existential for you!
I thought I was well-grounded in the groundlessness of existentiality. Is it back to the drawing board? :yikes:
Nah, stay in the shifting groundless ground. It's the only place to be.
:cool:
I have been troubled by this for a long time without making any real progress.
1. A while ago someone posted a thread on the difference between benign and vicious circularity. I think the the self-supporting nature of logic, the evident circularity in having to appeal to reason to justify reason, is a benign circularity.
I think the basic syllogism works like this:
1. If logic is justified then predictions it makes must come true
2. Predictions it makes are true
Therefore
3. Logic is justified
The fallacy the argument commits, per logic itself, is that of affirming the consequent.
But there are countless situations where logic's predictions come true. The numbers are significant enough to compensate for the fallacious reasoning (some may disagree).
Look at it another way...
May be it isn't circular as it initially appears to be.
Logic demands that we have reasons to support beliefs.
What of our belief in the ability of logic to find truths? Doesn't that need justification?
Yes, it surely does BUT this isn't circular in the manner of a bad argument. Logic isn't saying ''I'm true because I'm true''. That would be a vicious circularity.
Instead logic is saying ''I'm looking in the mirror of my own making and ensuring my own worth.''
Self-reflection is better than self-aggrandizing.
In a way, the ability of logic to find fault with itself is a plus point rather than a damning flaw.
Are you asking for a rational justification for being rational? Isn't that circular?
I don't think that feelings are irrational, tout court. If your life is in danger it makes sense that you
fear. If your loved one is in the hospital it makes sense that you worry. If you achieve something you care about then it makes sense that you feel accomplished.
So, no, I don't think that this is irrational. It's just consistent -- these are a couple of reasons why we provide reasons. And I'd say that my response describes how rationality works, too. One, it is nice to hear why someone believes as they do -- else I'll just stick to the beliefs I happen to have, since there is no moving from one belief to another by some means which allows different persons to consider them. And two, we move our beliefs because some justification is persuasive -- which itself only makes sense to me in terms of aesthetics.
Are you quite clear what you want to argue here and what you don't?
How would you feel about this same argument with the first premise replaced by its converse? Or replaced by a biconditional? The one would be valid, but maybe not what you want to say. The other only "partially" valid.
This is not my experience. Consciousness does not drive the mind, it follows along with a notebook and writes things down. Most of the work of of thinking takes place in the background and pops up when it's needed. Of course intuition can be wrong, lead to bad decisions, so can rationality. They're really just two sides of the same process. You can't have reason without what we are calling intuition. Feeling that I know and knowing are the same experience.
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
Intuition doesn't imply "complete trust or confidence" any more than rational knowledge does. Knowing something is not a matter of being certain, it's a matter of being confident enough in your understanding that you can justify making a particular decision consistent with the possible consequences of your action. That never calls for "complete trust or confidence," primarily because it's impossible to find that.
We do the best we can.
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
I'm an civil/environmental engineer. I've worked on at least 200 sites where there was contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater. My job is to figure out how to clean it up. When I get involved in a new site, I almost always can tell you within a couple of hours of reviewing existing information what the best way of dealing with it will be. Often that's based on little site-specific information. Obviously, that's not enough to go on - there is more review, research, and study needed before we can decide to move forward, but 30 years of experience allows me to focus on the important aspects of the problem. Almost none of this thinking is what you would call consciously rational. After spending time with the data, those of us involved in the job will get together talk. That's probably the first time what we are doing is really what I would call rational. We have to put it into words to communicate with others. In a sense, rationality and putting things into words are the same process. None of this has anything to do with faith.
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
It isn't the case, at least for me, because I spend a lot of time trying to be aware of my thinking process and, based on that self-awareness, what you describe is not what happens. My view is not an idiosyncratic one, lots of psychologists and philosophers hold similar views.
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
You say:
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
I say:
Quoting T Clark
Did I misunderstand you? When you say "rationality is justified with intuition" to me that means rationality comes first. When I say "rationality is what we use after we've made a decision" I mean that what we are calling intuition comes first.
One that doesn't have to do with reasons. A rather intuitive one is the view that rationality is a property of persons; it supervenes on the mental. If two individuals in different universes are mentally equivalent, then they both have the same degree of rationality. Under the assumption we can be mistaken about reasons, if I mistakenly think a murderer is in my house, truly genuinely believe it, and I do not wish to die, then it is rational for me to try to escape whether or not I actually have a reason to escape. I can lack a reason to act and be rationally permitted to act. It is also rather natural for us to say that I would be irrational if I did not intend to escape given my beliefs and desires, because rationality, according to this conception, is more a matter of consistency between our beliefs, intended goals, etc., and not actual reasons.
Of course this leads to a general issue facing coherentism, that a matrix of beliefs may cohere well but have no basis in reality, i.e. the logic is valid but the premises are false. To ground the normativity of rationality seems to require that the premises be true - otherwise the rationality is arbitrary. The rules are set up, and the agent follows them correctly, but they don't really mean anything. Kant seems to bring this point up when he discusses the rationality of morality, and how it chills us to the bone to see twisted, evil people act with cold "rationality". They have rationality in terms of hypothetical imperatives because they act upon maxims, but in terms of categorical imperatives they have an absence of rationality. Immoral acts are thus always irrational acts.
Nietzsche, I believe, critiques this sort of rationalism; there cannot be any reasons to be moral, since we can always push the question back further. Why should you not lie? Because that is immoral. But why should you be moral? Because that's what morality asks. But why should we follow morality? The meta-normative question exceeds the bounds of morality. Later certain British intuitionists tried to avoid this problem by denying the regress and affirming that there is no meta-normative question, that morality just is binding and to ask "why be moral?" is to ask a malformed question. Anyway I think this may be relevant to the current discussion. If morality is aligned with rationality, so that what is rational is also what is moral, then the question "why be moral" is eclipsed by the question "why be rational?"
The question "why be rational?", though, is a meta-rational question, no? Is it not asking for reasons to be rational?
However all kinds of antecedent reasonings, one's own as well as the pre-reflectively introjected reasonings of others, go to make up the constitution of the affective self which one may put trust in without further conscious reasoning.
I think it is just a rational question, perhaps the primary one; but then I don't believe in any kinds of 'meta-questions'. Refusing to be rational obviously cannot be justified on purely rational grounds, but it might be justified, as a temporary disposition and/or within restricted contexts, on emotional, psychological,or even ethical or aesthetical, grounds. I think this is precisely in line with Kant's point about the distinction between pure and practical reason. Such a justification would still be rational, though, only it would not be 'rationality for rationality's sake', so to speak.
I think this is a plausible analogy. There are many senses to the word reason. An exhaustive taxonomic breakdown may be too much to ask for, but I think what you point out is relevant to the question. Sometimes we ask for the reason why someone did something, and all we are looking for is what motivated them. Other times we are looking for a justification. When I think of normative reasons, it's the justificatory role that is primary. So in my example of a person (call him Joe) mistakenly believing a murderer was in his house, one could respond that Joe was responding to "reasons", and what we mean by that is Joe was responding to what Derek Parfit called apparent reasons. Still, this would be an example in which rationality is not tied to actual normative, justifying reasons.
This has always bothered me, but I can't quite seem to figure out why I find this so bothersome. Do our intuitions demand rationality to be a thick concept that has a non-arbitrary connection with the world? Because my intuitions about that annoyingly oscillate back and forth. I guess I fear that if we make criteria for rationality external to mental processes then the criteria itself becomes arbitrary. How do we come to know which external criteria actually count as genuine requirements of rationality? To avoid that problem, I adopt a more limiting, less thick, conception of rationality, relegating it to consistency amongst beliefs, conative states, etc.
I think what matters is how exactly morality is lined with rationality. If we think of morality as necessarily reason-generating (if something is morally wrong, then there is a reason not to do it), and if rationality is tracking actual reasons, then it would seem one must be moral to be rational. I personally don't think this is plausible, as it is way too demanding (unless of course we are ok with admitting we are all irrational and rationality is rarely, if ever, achieved). As a result, I reject the tie between rationality and reasons to avoid that issue. But even if true, I don't think this would replace the OP question, as one can still ask for actual reasons to be rational. I also don't think this question can be jettisoned as a failure to grasp the concepts involved.
This is going to be a really random question. But are you Andy Clark? lol I think it unlikely as you said you were a civil engineer. But I'm still asking haha.
Meanwhile, just one irrational astronaut could easily destroy billions of dollars' worth of equipment, not to mention wasting the passion and stress that large teams of people go into every major space project.
Thank you. There are the following possibilities:
J=logic is justified
P=the predictions logic makes come true
1. J -> P
2. P -> J
3. J <-> P which is equivalent to (J -> P) & (P -> J)
2. is unacceptable because P is possible through mere coincidence.
The above objection also makes 3 unacceptable.
So, the only option is 1. J -> P = if logic is justified then the predictions logic makes come true.
This wasn't directed at me, and I may have it all wrong, but I think this is meant to refer to the nonconscious mind, and how it (very) often makes the decisions. The conscious mind follows on a bit later (perhaps with its notebook, as described :grin: ), and pretends to itself that it is really in control. I don't think it refers to predestination. :chin:
True. It's also true that "If its predictions are accurate, then logic is justified" sounds more like a definition than anything else, that it says this is what we mean by "justified". Your syllogism, seen that way, is just figuring out whether the word "justified", so defined, applies to logic. And it does, despite the possibility that every test of logic has succeeded by the merest coincidence rather than because This Is How The World Is. Justification is for us, isn't it? Or were you thinking of some other meaning for "justification"?
By "justification" I mean sufficient reason to merit belief.
As you already know this basic principle (must have reason to believe in something) leads to a circularity when it comes to logic.
Question 1: Why believe in logic? Asking for justification for logic i.e. why should we believe logic is the correct method of thinking.
Any attempt to answer the question would begin with "BECAUSE..." and that is, obviously, presupposing logic is the correct method of thinking.
How do we escape this circularity. I suggested a syllogism and, as you have correctly pointed out, that is insufficient. I revisited the notion of justification for logic and I think the sound argument is given below:
L = Logic is justified
P = MANY or MOST or preferably ALL predictions of logic come true
Argument A
1. P -> L
2. P
Therefore
3. L
The premise 1 is justified because it is highly unlikely that ALL predictions of logic coming true by mere chance.
What do you think?
Well, yeah, it would be quite a coincidence. I didn't see the need to labor the point. What you say here is what I was saying, so long as you take "tends to successfully predict" as the meaning of "justified". I think you probably should, because what else is there?
I don't know that you can make much more of this.
I'm just happy I came up with a sound argument that justifies logic (using logic).
I don't know who MJ is, but are you able to rationalize your mention of Kanye?
If you were alone, living off the land, you would learn to trust your instincts and intuitions, with a reason bridge not always needed. The answer is good enough. It is only you, and you can intuitively sense the answer. On the other hand, if you had a new idea for a business that would be successful, and you need the cooperation of others for resources, you will need logic to build a bridge, so the investors can see the other side of the gap. They cannot read your mind, to see and feel your intuition.
You were already there, on the other side, based on the intuition. But others will not come over unless the logic bridge spans the gap and seems sturdy. The creator may have to take time to translate the intuition into a logic bridge for others. He has the advantage of being able to build from two sides toward the middle.
Since logic can build bridges, sometimes you may have an intuition, but the answer is very fuzzy. Logic can be used to build a bridge with only one side anchored; question, and the other side sitting on sand.; answer. This is like a cavalier type bridge, that extends outward from the sturdy side and hopefully it reaches the other side before it shears and falls. Some rational bridge builders can cavalier long distances and reach a sturdy anchor point. Now the stress profile changes. It makes sense to others.
Michael Jackson.
Does anyone consider Kanye West to be a man of reason? A few quotes of his here: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/the-best-kanye-west-quotes-80943
So you are not prepared to select one thing to back your statement other than link to a gossip mag?
Words he uses merely supports his way of selling and emphasizing his brand. It's the entertainment business. It appears to work for him so is possibly a rational business plan. Keeps his brand on the magazine covers.
Probably astute, more than anything.
Context: entertainment and publicity industry.
Why be rational? It is the starting point to epistemology. To side with Descartes, there are first principles which are simply indubitable. "If rational then true" and "If irrational then not true" are examples of these.
We are conducting a lightweight and pointless conversation from which I have been keenly hoping to extricate myself so, in context, a gossip mag is an appropriate reference.
Having checked your postings I note that you are of the Trumpian faith, and thus would probably be about as responsive to rationality and reason as the man himself. This is not a meeting of the minds.
I see. This is all you look for rather than test your own hypotheses?
Have you tried dating sites?
You, Kanye, and The Don - paragons of rationality in this age of reason. jk
One must develop a perfect epistemology, a perfect logic and and a perfect ontology only that way one could argue that one is rational.
For any other status in philosophy one is intending in the best case, or attempting in the most cases, to be rational.
However, much of our reasons for rationalism or nonsense must be analyzed according to our definition of rationality.
You want a rational argument in support of rationality?
Think on that for a bit.
(Edit - Ah, another zombie thread - this one two years dead.)
There seem to be quite a few undead threads stalking the forum, presumably looking for brains to devour.
They are reanimated, perhaps, by incantations in Google.
Come now, this is just too good. Thread closed.
There are plenty of equally esoteric threads going on, but Ill concede theists have shitty arguments if thats what you mean. The line gets a bit blurry when the discourse has sunken into philosophical poverty like some of the current threads.
Well, I'm not - in the sense that it's not a binary thing. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. Further when I am not rational, this does not entail that am irrational - which is a pejorative term. It just means I arrived at choices through non-rational means. I don't reason my way to the toilet when I have to pee, and similar decisions are made through non-rational intuitive processes throughout my day. Many decisions I make socially are emotion driven, intuition driven decisions, not ones made via linear deductive, say, mental verbal processes. Of course I use rational processes also.
Even the choice of when to use rational means and when to follow intuition is generally not a rational choice. I make an intuitive choice. I also make an intuitive choice when I decide that my reasoning has been checked enough and it makes sense.
True. Very true.
So to justify rationality, we will use irrationality. "We use rationality because clocks excrete shruppa warriors' toupees." Pronto, we have a much better supporting argument for rationality than rationality. I mean, how ever possibly can you argue against the claim?
I think it's important to be rational when we can, despite most of our lives living fairly "irrationally." Rational planning out our lives and time, in accordance with the goals which we've concluded are what we want to achieve in life, certainly has a very real and very important role. I find it related to self-control in many ways.
Yes, it is normative. Foundations are required in any inquiry. Rationality provides the foundation for an inquiry regarding existence, for example, or even for our everyday decision-making attempts.
If anything, the book suggests that there are occasions when it's rational to be irrational - insanity, another word for irrationality, is a good [s]excuse[/s] reason to avoid certain responsibilities.
I suspect these situations come up all the time (in less dramatic fashion).
One situation is rational, and the other is irrational- it serves no purpose, except for the person doing it.
I think that we try to believe that we are rational but most of us are following the prompts of our subjective wishes, which are often far from rational. If anything, we try to justify our subjective intentions in a rational way as a means of self justification.
One possible means of living more rationally could be through cognitive behavioral therapy. I have never had CBT but have read a fair amount on the topic and did find that it helped me aware of inconsistencies in logic of my own interpretations of life experiences. If nothing else it is a means of exploring the lack of logic of one's own thinking in daily life.
How did you find out? Who told!!?? :-)
Why be rational? If this query is posed by way of an inquiry into other possibilities, possibilities other than rational, then, in my humble opinion, there are [s]two[/s] three: 1. Irrational, 2. Arational, 3. Hyper-rational.
1. Irrational is simply breaking the rules of logic and critical thinking.
2. Arational is best explained with an analogy. In ethics we have the immoral (prohibited), the moral (mandatory) and the amoral (neither prohibited, nor mandatory) and that's all she wrote
3. Hyper-rational is a hypothetical state of mind that has access to new rules of logic that are, as of now, hidden from us. The key difference between rational and hyper-rational would be that the latter would be incomprehensible to the former. I suppose the sentence "there's a thin line between genius and madness" says it all.