Preno

Rationality cannot exist without irrationality. Are actions are always, by definition, based on the irrational. Reason is just a tool. It has nothing to do with coldness or arrogance. To glorify reason on its own simply means mistaking a tool for its purpose. Reason is completely useless without emotions (and mind you, the vast majority of our lives is emotions) and emotions without reason to back them up are powerless.

Oxymoron

Ah, but "irrational" does not imply "subjective", and the contrary is also true.

Example: stamp on a number of people's big toe, very few will show pleasure at it. The reaction is irrational, but pretty universal.

We should also distinguish two slightly different nuances of irrational:

(1) not-rational (ie it is not a response that is primarily due to reasoning)
(2) counter-rational (ie it is not amenable to rational analysis)

If someone stamps on my toe I have a good reason to yell and want to deck them, even though these are non-rational responses. From an evolutionary standpoint that makes sense, as creatures immune to pain and self-defence might not live long enough to pass on their genes.

We should also distinguish reactions from responses - the former being a knee-jerk in some part caused by a stimulus; the latter being a reasoned consequence of the stimulus. It's probably fair to say that people who (choose to) respond rather than react are more in control of their lives than those who take actions whose consequences have not been considered. So I have to differ from you: it is a very good thing to separate the two things; it's just a pity so few people do it.

I don't think I would ever utter arithmetic in such circumstances, despite being on the whole attached to rationality as a means of making choices!

There's also a difference between logical and rational. The former is based upon quantities or entities that are either true or false. The latter must deal with situations where there is uncertainty in hypothesis, "don't know" is a valid state, and inference must be made on these systems.

openeyes

I'm not sure this is apropo to the discussion, but a rational approach can make you just as caring and warm as an "irrational' approach.

For example, I don't think we go anywhere after we die. That doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to someone who has lost a loved one through death even if they are a believer in a hereafter. A few years back a former co-worker came into the store I was working. She had recently tragically lost her stepfather. I just tried to think of where she was likely at and just talked to her about things. She later revealed and expressed her thanks that I was the first person to talk to her as a normal person and not a victim since the death. If anything, a sense of reality and rationality can make it easier to figure out how to be the most caring.

1olddog

This is exactly the way a majority appears to think, but I have to disagree with this idea (for the purpose of a peaceful discussion here). I think that the inability to separate logic and feelings is the cause of many problems in human relationships. I think that pure logic is the best, if not the only way to make sound and rational decisions and that feelings are totally private experiences that should have no, or only subordinate/secondary roles, in our decision making processes. I don’t think that there is such a thing as “bad�? logic, but rather logic that has been replaced or been screwed-up by letting private feelings interfere with rational thinking. I think that being able to separate logic and feelings is a very admirable skill and does not need to take away anything from fully experiencing and enjoying our (private) feelings.

Astinus

I think the idea that logic and emotions must constantly battle each other for supremacy is the biggest cause of this problem. Feelings dictate the necessity of a decision, but rationality must be the ultimate decision-maker. That's their "job," so to speak. Without emotions, we would have no reason to need to use logic, and without logic, we would be animals ruled by our momentary instincts/feelings/whims.

1olddog

I very much agre. In fact, I think you are proving my above point.

1olddog

Isn't it the ability of using logic that sets humans apart from animals?

StaticAge

Here's the thing- if "private feelings" interfere with "rational thinking," it would seem that "rational thinking" is then some extra-human thing, and its not, its anthropomorphic. Further, to me it implies that there is a specific way that all people "should" think like, and frankly that sounds just as distasteful as many religious claims.

StaticAge

Sure. But the ability to feel and to impart subjective meaning based on feelings is what separates man from calculators.

Astinus

Isn't that what I said?

This is why there's so many problems with communication these days - because of that. Words are used - not with objective definitions - but based on feelings. That's the justification for "political correctness," such as euphemisms. The same objective meanings, but they make either the user or the receiver (or both of them) feel better. It's also the same justification for a lot of theists using the word "god" without even defining in their own mind what they think god is - it's just supposed to be self-evident(same with other terms such as "love"). I could go on and on. It's irrational nonsense.