wade-w

Sabine:

I'd like to see the discussion focus on what it means to live a rational life. What you suggest is certainly part of that. However, what I hope to see in this thread is more along the lines of the discussion between Nowhere357, BBT and Biff. I feel that is more in the spirit of the OP without getting into personal analysis.

Feel free to start a new thread, or if this one evolves into what you suggest, I will not object.

Luiseach

Hurrah! Glad to see this thread finally back on track!

Salut Sabine:

I've heard it said that reason is its own justification.

However, there is more to reason than this, and the question certainly deserves discussion.

Many potential answers could be offered, which in turn could raise more questions.

To live a 'rational life' could be seen as an attempt to rise above instinct, emotion, and the physical.

Or

To be 'rational' could be seen as an attempt to produce positive outcomes (depending on the system of thought one uses...utilitarianism for instance, which is to produce the greatest good for the most people).

Or

To live in a rational manner could be seen as a balancing act - that is, acknowledging the existence of the so-called 'irrational' aspects of ourselves (emotions, feelings, beliefs, faith) at the same time as realising that these aspects co-exist with our reasoning faculties. Symbiosis, in other words.

We are emotional beings, and we are rational beings. The issue at hand, I think, is complex: how do we evaluate the 'rational' in terms of outcomes and/or beliefs? At the moment, I would propose that both factors - outcomes and beliefs - deserve equal scrutiny.

Thoughts on this?

Nowhere357

I dunno. I've never tried, at least not on purpose.

I have been consistent on my point - holding an irrational belief does not of necessity make a person generally irrational.

Yes, I know. This does not contradict my point. As soon as you concede that "holding an irrational belief does not of necessity make a person generally irrational", then we can address and whether "centering" one's life on an irrational belief is sufficient to declare a person generally irrational.

My analogies serve to make my point, and have not been refuted. So I reject the "fallacious" claim.

No I don't see. I'll show you why after I receive the concession.

Holding an irrational belief does not of necessity make a person generally irrational.

Nowhere357

I would say that a rational life is based on weighing and considering all of one's thoughts.

I'm not convinced that either outcomes or beliefs are necessarily relevant. If someone lives a rational life, I think that only implies that they can be reasoned with.

But I'm not really sure. Do you see a difference between "being a rational person" and "living a rational life"?

Nowhere357

I agree with this, I think. I note that we always have reason - even if it's as simple as "because I want to", which seems to me to be both a reason, and no reason at all. As a parent, I've heard that this a lot!

I don't like this definition, because "rising above" our impulses means to me an application of our will, and I really haven't thought of "will" and "reason" as in any way synonomous. Although they surely involve each other.

Does this reduce to: 'rational' means to move toward a goal? If so, don't irrational people also move towards a goal?

This speaks the clearest to me. I hear "a consideration and a weighing of all our thoughts".


Thanks for the good post. This is a new subject for me, and I appreciate your insights.

Luiseach

I wasn't really meaning that when I said 'reason is its own justification,' because when used properly, and when based on facts, reason can work very well.

The example you gave (i.e. the 'because I want to' example up there) is a rationalisation, which is an excuse masquerading as a reason, unjustified by the facts.

Absolutely. Reason is intimately involved with the 'will'...emotions/impulses/instincts are what we control, suppress, sublimate, indulge with our will, a will which in turn is based, ideally, on our reasoning abilities.

Utilitarianism is just one ethical system amongst others, and it is but one example of a philosophy that could be used to discuss what a 'rational life' might be like. (There are others we could throw into the mix of course)

Yes, most human behaviours are goal-driven, whether we judge them as rational or irrational. The rationale behind utilitarianist philosophies is to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action depending on whether it brings about, respectively, 'happiness' or 'unhappiness.' It's an example of consequentialism - judging good and bad based on the consequences of acts. The 'goal' is 'happiness' (whatever that is) and to avoid 'unhappiness' (whatever that is).

Again, I emphasise that there are other philosophies, both religious and non-religious, that could be considered as either leading towards or leading away from the 'rational life' we're trying to visualise.

I don't know if the following is relevant to the discussion or not, but what do you think of this aspect of utilitarian types of philosophies: utilitarianism is less interested in the motives of the person than it is in the outcomes. If the result of such-and-such a behaviour is judged as 'good,' then the motives of the person doing the 'behaving' are irrelevant, or if not irrelevant, then at least less significant than the goodness of the outcomes? (I've never known what to think about this aspect of utilitarian philosophies...makes me uneasy for some reason!!!)

This is interesting...would you mind expanding on it a bit more for clarification purposes?

Thanks!

Nowhere357

Yes, it's a rationalization. However, note the root of the word "rationalisation"!

Also, the existence of feelings (such as "wanting") is factual, is it not?

Yes, I agree. I note here the use of "ideally", so I think you would agree that using our will does not necessarily involve reasoning ability.

I think I'm starting to understand - you are saying that a rational life must involve some sort of philosophical framework?

Is it the philosophies which lead to a rational life, or the other way around? My thinking right now is the latter.

As you define it here, I would say utilitarianism may be part of a complete philosophy, but is incomplete on it's own.

For example, consider if someone tried to murder me, but inadvertantly saved my life. I would say the outcome alone is only part of the picture!

I would say the outcome and the motive are on different axis, so to speak. Apples and oranges, or something. Yes, I'm skeptical that utilarianism is a complete philosophy. I don't think it's necessarily unsound, though. It's hard to argue with results!

Right now, I don't see a functional difference between living a rational life, and being a rational person. And a rational person, imo, considers and weighs all of his thoughts, including, as you pointed out, his emotions, feelings, beliefs.

I think rational people can come to different conclusions/decisions based on the same information - it's the process that identifies rationality, and not necessarily the results.

Do you see a difference between living a rational life, and being a rational person?

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Nowhere and everyone..... IMO a rational life implies positive outcomes. Life is experience. It is not abstract. A rational life is the application of personal choices based on a thought process where the individual looks for what is the better outcome among several alternatives.
A rational individual may still make the wrong choices....mostly because we cannot control all circumstances. Despite of the use of the gift of reason, one may encounter the worse outcomes.

Emotions have a lot to do with irrational thinking..... fear for example. People who suffer of phobias end up with irrational choices such as avoiding crowds or even stepping outside. A person who is convinced that his neighbor is a vampire and calls 911 is obviously not exercising reason as he makes that emergency call. The same person who would call 911 to intervene as he can hear his neighbor threatening his spouse with a gun is making that call based on rational thinking.

Crimes of passion are caused by irrational thinking. It is a reactive response to an overwhelming emotional state.

IMO a rational person does not necessarly require the use of intelligence. And an intelligent individual can lack a rational thought process while responding to spontaneous situations. I would relate reason more to common sense than intelligence.

Nowhere357

Hi Sabine. Thank you for a good post. Your examples are clear, and I understand your points.


I agree that outcomes are a part of it, but I think there must be more to living a rational life.

For example, irrational behavior can at times produce positive outcomes.

Bumble Bee Tuna

No, because IMO theism is irrational. However, I can produce a whole slew of theists who believe they are being rational. RBAC admits he is not being rational.

Correct. Rational people often make decisions based on irrational emotions. Rational people also regret doing so. Unlike RBAC.

Making him fit my definition perfectly! He's someone who does not want to live according to his irrational fear, and tries not to. "Accepting" his fear does not mean liking it, or thinking it's not a problem. It means recognizing that he will have to deal with it.

of course, because you provided an example of a person who met my definition of rational...UNLIKE RBAC. RBAC does not "accept" his theism as a problem that he is incapable of solving and thus he must deal with for his life, like the phobic man. Instead, he thinks it's a good thing.

And what a coincidence! it's right and wrong with the same percentages and random guessing. Which is why rational people would not use intuitive thinking and be ok with it- gut feelings do NOT lead to the most like conclusions.

Begging the question. Those people who use their gut feelings and consider that acceptable are not rational. I never claimed that rationality was a common trait.

Oh, I'll bet most mothers would pick 1 too- and I would say most people are irrational. What's the point here? I worded them poorly anyway, as one could pick both...You could say "yeah, that was irrational, but it was the right thing to do, because *thought process #2*".

I meant that a rational person who has been taught the way the brain works will recognize the effect that brain physics has on his/her own actions and the actions of others.

Not at all. This is a clever piece of wordplay, and I am having trouble pointing out exactly where the flaw is in your writing, much like someone having trouble telling you where the "missing dollar" is in the riddle about the 3 guys who get a hotel room (hopefully you've heard it and this reference is understood). Allow me to try anyway, as what you have written is clearly wrong, but just hard to explain.

The anecdote about your kids is not related to our discussion. We are discussing rationality. The apparent contradiction was what was supposed to make the anecdote involve an irrational belief. It turns out it is not a contradiction, and your anecdote involves only rational beliefs. The RBAC example still does involve irrational beliefs, so your anecdote does not relate to it. You tried to make it out like they were the same, by saying they were both "apparent contradictions". But the god bit is nothing of the sort. How is "belief in an irrational god" in any way contradictory? It is one idea, you need a second idea for it to contradict.

Your rhetoric is impressive, but looking closely it didn't actually make sense.

-B