Help me Prove the Irrational is Wrong...

[SilentScope001]

A note: I know there are a lot of people that pride rationality, like Achilles, ED, Jae, etc. I'm one of them. So, I think you can help me out on this project.

 

I am writing my philosphy book upon Ideas, and I have made a (hopefully) stable proof that shows that all Ideas are actually based on the irrational feelings and biases that each person holds. If you question someone about their belief, asking them for evidence for that belief, a standard to evaluate that evidence, and then evidence to back up that standard to make sure that it is valid, etc. the person will end up telling that the idea is 'self-evident' and that he will refuse to answer. This does not discount his Idea, but it says that he irrationaly clings to it, when rationally, if he has no proof of his Idea, he should not listen to it.

 

Alright. I got stuck with a problem, a big problem...I want to prove that the Irrational is wrong. I can't do that.

 

Many of you support logical discourse, but I cannot find any way to actually back up proof for using logic and abandonig the irrational. Some people state that it is the irrational that allows us to commune with an Objective Truth that we cannot truly understand (that is, the Idea of God), and that by turning away from the irrational, we are actually turning away from truth. Other people state that you should accept things based on faith anyway, since you cannot operate in the world without taking faith in something (like say, in observations).

 

The reason I want to prove that Rationality is a good thing and that Irrationality is a bad thing is that I could then, using that, attempt to push an agenda to have people remove this "irrational" feelings that they have. I don't know how, but if people can find a way to squash these feelings and become truly rational beings, this world could be a much better place. But I need to make sure that I want total rationality, and no "irrational" feelings, biass, and unjustified opinons.

 

The only things I got:

1. The irrational is in contorl of our thoughts. If one human can modify the irrational (via education, properganda, debate, etc.), that human can contorl our thoughts. We do not want our thoughts to be contorlled by an external force thereby robbing us of our ability to choose what we want to believe, hence we must plug the irrational.

2. All Ideas are based on irrational beliefs. If you can trace it to that, then it leads to a question of why you should adhere to one Idea when another Idea is also equally valid. The irrational beliefs can also change, randomly, or by an external force, and if they change and flip-flop reguraly, then they should not be trusted, as they are constantly shifiting and never remain stable.

 

This knocks the irrational somewhat (though more proof may be needed), but then why should one rely on the rational? What is in the rational that can counterbalance the flaws of the irrational.

 

Thank you for all that respond.

[Samuel Dravis]

Choices only matter in an unchanging, external environment. Obviously if you're saying you make "choices" then you assume the objective world, because if it were not objective then "choice" could not exist.

 

Rational application of the objective (i.e., use of the predictability of natural phenomena) works extremely well in context with our assumption that there is a world to make choices in. We therefore use this to base communcation on. We find through our senses others who seem/are "like to me" in nature. They also appear to experience the world as we know it, and therefore the world's phenomena is common ground, regardless of we might call a particular effect. I might say that "John is dead" in english and people who speak a different language would not understand me. However, they would understand what I was talking about, given proper translation - people learn what "death" means through personal experience.

 

Given that we have established common ideas about the objective world, we can then talk about them meaningfully. In our case, this kind of shared knowledge/experience results in a society able to work together to achieve common goals. This is a very valuable feature, in my opinion.

[SilentScope001]

Choices only matter in an unchanging, external environment. Obviously if you're saying you make "choices" then you assume the objective world, because if it were not objective then "choice" could not exist.

 

I did make choices when I sleep and have many dreams. I do make some choices, but the enviroment is internal, and changing.

---

Hm...I also need to define rational. This is the use of logic to come to conclusions. You have a Claim, an Evidence to back up that Claim, and a Warrant that explains your assumptions that relates the Evidence to the Claim. If the Warrant and the Evidence is correct, logically, your Claim should be correct.

 

The problem is that the Warrant and the Evidence can be questioned, and can be questioned if they are valid and correct? A person needs to offer a standard to evaluate the claim and warrant. Once that is done, a person then needs to offer another argument, to prove that this Standard is valid. Then, a person needs to evaluate that argument, via a standard. Etc.

 

One either has to go on forever, which I believe, is impossible for us humans...or one has to stop, and tell me that it is self-evident. By refusing to answering the question, by refusing to continue into this logical framework of answering questions, I declare that to be entering into "irrational".

 

And, as for everyone sharing the same basic common Ideas, this is good for society, but just because everyone believes in those Ideas doesn't mean that it is any more correct or incorrect. They believe in these Ideas...why? Question their basic beliefs, and I guess they'll get mad. I'll define that as being "irrational" too, but in a good way: Since everyone agrees with these same basic common Ideas, we don't have to worry if those Ideas are right or wrong, we can operate within a framework.

 

This book isn't really about wheter an extenral world really exist or not...but rather about Ideas hating each other. Think of it like the Liberals and the Conservatives duking it out. Which one is correct? And why does two different ideologies (say, communsim and capitalism) would wage wars. Since all Ideas are based on the irrational, I wonder if it is possible to find a way to debunk the Irrational, to hopefully create a society that is totally Rational.

[Samuel Dravis]

I did make choices when I sleep and have many dreams. I do make some choices, but the enviroment is internal, and changing.

And those choices don't mean anything. I guess I meant by choice is the real effect the decision has. If the environment changes to your will, then the "choice" had no actual meaning, denying free will. And if you don't have free will, then it makes this discussion kinda pointless, doesn't it?

 

And, as for everyone sharing the same basic common Ideas, this is good for society, but just because everyone believes in those Ideas doesn't mean that it is any more correct or incorrect. They believe in these Ideas...why? Question their basic beliefs, and I guess they'll get mad. I'll define that as being "irrational" too, but in a good way: Since everyone agrees with these same basic common Ideas, we don't have to worry if those Ideas are right or wrong, we can operate within a framework.

Isn't that in itself a distinct advantage over irrationality?

 

This book isn't really about wheter an extenral world really exist or not...but rather about Ideas hating each other. Think of it like the Liberals and the Conservatives duking it out. Which one is correct? And why does two different ideologies (say, communsim and capitalism) would wage wars. Since all Ideas are based on the irrational, I wonder if it is possible to find a way to debunk the Irrational, to hopefully create a society that is totally Rational.

Like I told you in the other thread, constructs made for the objective world can be measured by their ability to achieve the aims set for them. Communism has not been shown to be truly effective at maintaining an industrialized economy, while capitalism has (to date). It's also true that communism is better at some things than capitalism. You just have to define exactly what you want out of your economic system. People, given their different needs, will want different things. Therefore, they argue about communism vs. capitalism. Both are "correct" in the sense that they do what the people who support them want them to do, but neither can claim to be the "best" way because they were made with different objectives in mind. The same goes for Conservatives vs. Liberals, etc.

[SilentScope001]

And those choices don't mean anything. I guess I meant by choice is the real effect the decision has. If the environment changes to your will, then the "choice" had no actual meaning, denying free will. And if you don't have free will, then it makes this discussion kinda pointless, doesn't it?

 

Well, I didn't know the enviroment changed to my will when I was sleeping. Only when I was awake could I decude that prehaps it might have been occuring to my subconsisus, but I do not know.

 

I know trying to disprove the external world would just get me into hot trouble, so I probraly won't do that, and just leave it at "you have choices". But what do you do with those choices? This is where the irrational comes in, and gives you the framework by which you follow and tell you what choices to do.

 

Speaking of which, prehaps I can use that as an argument against the irrational. It robs us of our ability to choose, since it is not us that is choosing, but our feelings, by which we have no contorl over. We need to gain indepedence, and free ourselves.

 

Isn't that in itself a distinct advantage over irrationality?

 

Problem is...that is irrationality. Accepting something without proof, having a common framework, that is, to me, irrational. If a person is reasonable, he would always evaulate everything, making sure it is correct, and questioning everything. If he refuses to question even the basic frameworks, he accepts some form of irrationality.

 

In its stead, having a common framework is an argument for irrationality and against rationality, not exactly what I desire.

 

Like I told you in the other thread, constructs made for the objective world can be measured by their ability to achieve the aims set for them. Communism has not been shown to be truly effective at maintaining an industrialized economy, while capitalism has (to date). It's also true that communism is better at some things than capitalism. You just have to define exactly what you want out of your economic system. People, given their different needs, will want different things. Therefore, they argue about communism vs. capitalism. Both are "correct" in the sense that they do what the people who support them want them to do, but neither can claim to be the "best" way because they were made with different objectives in mind. The same goes for Conservatives vs. Liberals, etc.

 

It then goes to "Why do you prefer these different objecitves?" Again, that seems to me irrational...

 

Speaking of which, I might as well reintroduce a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1325394000&en=7d7a58876163384d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

This basically is a newspaper article that talks about scientisits finally postulating out that we don't have free will. I wonder what you feel about it, does our life have meaning if we have no free will?

[Samuel Dravis]

Well, I didn't know the enviroment changed to my will when I was sleeping. Only when I was awake could I decude that prehaps it might have been occuring to my subconsisus, but I do not know.

Yet it did. "Choices" made in a dream have no (lasting) consequences, and what consequences they do have are determined entirely by your mind. In the real world, other people would be affected by it as well. I'm sure they'd tell you if it were getting them angry. Yeah yeah, how do you know they're not constructs too? I can't answer that and I don't think that people's present abilities will provide any.

 

Problem is...that is irrationality. Accepting something without proof, having a common framework, that is, to me, irrational. If a person is reasonable, he would always evaulate everything, making sure it is correct, and questioning everything. If he refuses to question even the basic frameworks, he accepts some form of irrationality.

 

In its stead, having a common framework is an argument for irrationality and against rationality, not exactly what I desire.

And if that questioning is found to be completely useless, then creating a framework seems quite reasonable to me. You can be rational even if you have incomplete information, though your conclusions may not produce the results you'd get from having all knowledge, but that's to be expected.

 

It then goes to "Why do you prefer these different objecitves?" Again, that seems to me irrational...

Um, why should they not prefer objectives that produce favorable results for themselves? Whether or not those results are good in a sense they cannot determine at the moment is irrelevant to their choices now.

 

Speaking of which, I might as well reintroduce a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1325394000&en=7d7a58876163384d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

This basically is a newspaper article that talks about scientisits finally postulating out that we don't have free will. I wonder what you feel about it, does our life have meaning if we have no free will?

I've read that one before. As for your question, I've never claimed that life had any meaning other than what we give it, and that only insofar as we have the ability to do so. If living I am confined to the possibilities opened to me by virtue of the current state of the universe, then I can hardly be upset about it. Meaning? It has meaning to me now. I don't see the enjoyment I get out of being with my friends becoming any less because of such a revelation. I can see some ways that it being deterministic in this way would almost be better, because then I could methodically plan out how to woo ALL the (hawt) ladies with maths formulas. Resistance is futile!

[SilentScope001]

Yet it did. "Choices" made in a dream have no (lasting) consequences, and what consequences they do have are determined entirely by your mind. In the real world, other people would be affected by it as well. I'm sure they'd tell you if it were getting them angry. Yeah yeah, how do you know they're not constructs too? I can't answer that and I don't think that people's present abilities will provide any.

 

Okay.

 

And if that questioning is found to be completely useless, then creating a framework seems quite reasonable to me. You can be rational even if you have incomplete information, though your conclusions may not produce the results you'd get from having all knowledge, but that's to be expected.

 

Ah. I guess I want complete rationality (with no irrationality) so that the questioning can be seen to have USE, as well as prehaps having said future man with all the information, but that is not to be expected. Prehaps in the future, with genetic engerring, prehaps. *sigh*. Or, maybe I am looking for infinite beings who can gain complete information, to find out the truth. Both seem impossible, but I do think I desire it.

 

Um, why should they not prefer objectives that produce favorable results for themselves? Whether or not those results are good in a sense they cannot determine at the moment is irrelevant to their choices now.

 

I mean, why do they think that the results are favourable to them? Like, suppose a person is given money. Why is the person happy he is given money? Because he can buy stuff? Why does he want to buy stuff? He wants to be happy. Why does he want to be happy? Etc.

 

The thing is, somehow, there is something we cannot explain. I don't know why I want to be happy...I just want to be happy. It gives me a eurohpia feeling, but why should I prefer happiness? It is this sort of thing that I term as "irrational".

 

I can see some ways that it being deterministic in this way would almost be better, because then I could methodically plan out how to woo ALL the (hawt) ladies with maths formulas. Resistance is futile!

 

I can understand the joke, but to me, that is the most horrible thing yet (convicing one person by using the mathmatical formula to follow you). If it can be concluded that everything is deterministic, then it can leads to very icky ethical questions. One common one is: If you can explain evil...is it really evil, or just normal? The more subtle one is: Why do you EVEN think about judging if an act is evil or not? Since you are human, you too are determined by factors...and if so, your judgement of good and evil is not to be trusted, since they can be swayed by factors.

 

To put it simply, what if one use this technology to do a form of Mind Contorl, like you suggest? Not the subtle one as education, but actual direct use of math formulas? Being swayed by my own irrational thoughts is one thing...being swayed by an irrational thought of ANOTHER PERSON is totally another. At least, in the former, at least a part of you contorlled you. In the latter, you have lost total contorl over your actions as someone else ursups your autonomy, and takes your whole body over. This is done to a lesser extent via debate, argument, and properganda...but to have Science come in to do such a thing...that would be quite deveasting.

 

Not that you would actually do such a thing to girls.

[Samuel Dravis]

I mean, why do they think that the results are favourable to them? Like, suppose a person is given money. Why is the person happy he is given money? Because he can buy stuff? Why does he want to buy stuff? He wants to be happy. Why does he want to be happy? Etc.

I want to be happy because it's more pleasing to me than any other condition I've experienced. Why do I consider it pleasant? I don't know, that's just the way I am.

 

I can understand the joke, but to me, that is the most horrible thing yet (convicing one person by using the mathmatical formula to follow you). If it can be concluded that everything is deterministic, then it can leads to very icky ethical questions. One common one is: If you can explain evil...is it really evil, or just normal? The more subtle one is: Why do you EVEN think about judging if an act is evil or not? Since you are human, you too are determined by factors...and if so, your judgement of good and evil is not to be trusted, since they can be swayed by factors.

 

To put it simply, what if one use this technology to do a form of Mind Contorl, like you suggest? Not the subtle one as education, but actual direct use of math formulas? Being swayed by my own irrational thoughts is one thing...being swayed by an irrational thought of ANOTHER PERSON is totally another. At least, in the former, at least a part of you contorlled you. In the latter, you have lost total contorl over your actions as someone else ursups your autonomy, and takes your whole body over. This is done to a lesser extent via debate, argument, and properganda...but to have Science come in to do such a thing...that would be quite deveasting.

If the universe is deterministic then there is no good or evil. Those terms would be undefined. My influence on whomever would be no less natural than the effects of gravity. I could say that some actions are "evil" because they cause suffering, but people who were predisposed to do evil acts would do them if they had the opportunity. They have no choice in the matter. This is part of the reason I am against vengeance punishments for crimes. If the people are dangerous then I am for making them not dangerous (through taking them off the street, etc); but punishment? I don't have a good reason to punish. My objective is to end suffering, not cause it.

 

Not that you would actually do such a thing to girls.

Um, well...

[tk102]

I don't know how, but if people can find a way to squash these feelings and become truly rational beings, this world could be a much better place.

 

Thus the robots turned on their masters...

 

Sorry, I'll fight for humanity instead.

[Achilles]

Are you saying that being rational would somehow cause us to forgo our humanity? If so, I guess I'm not seeing the correlation. Would you mind expanding on this a little more?

[tk102]

I was responding to SS001's desire to become fully rational with no irrationality.

Ah. I guess I want complete rationality (with no irrationality) so that the questioning can be seen to have USE, as well as prehaps having said future man with all the information, but that is not to be expected. Prehaps in the future, with genetic engerring, prehaps. *sigh*. Or, maybe I am looking for infinite beings who can gain complete information, to find out the truth. Both seem impossible, but I do think I desire it.

Yes, this would make us more like robots or Vulcans, if you like.

 

Doesn't do much for art, does it?

[Achilles]

Is there no rational basis for art, beauty, love, etc? I guess I'm still not seeing the steps to your conclusion.

[SilentScope001]

I want to be happy because it's more pleasing to me than any other condition I've experienced. Why do I consider it pleasant? I don't know, that's just the way I am.

 

Ah, okay. I know there are limits, but we should always try to exceed them, I guess.

 

My influence on whomever would be no less natural than the effects of gravity.

 

Well, you destroyed my objection then. All forms of mind contorl would truly be natural, if everything is determinstic. I just find it quite scary, but that's just from an irrational point of view.

 

This is part of the reason I am against vengeance punishments for crimes. If the people are dangerous then I am for making them not dangerous (through taking them off the street, etc); but punishment? I don't have a good reason to punish

 

1) Would you be for "rehabiliative" punishments that would change the prisonser's composition to fit what we want 'normal' humans to be?

 

2) People are sort of vengeful, and want to inflict pain on those who inflicted pain on them. People basically gain pleasure from tortuting and imprisoning others. So, we could punish one person so that everyone else gets the beniefts of happiness, no?

 

Yes, this would make us more like robots or Vulcans, if you like.

 

Doesn't do much for art, does it?

 

Well, you see, I see Humans being different from animals due to our "rationality", or our use of reason. Animals just have insticit, but we also have reason, in addition to instict, a byproduct of evolution. (Take "reason" out of the equation and we lose the last boundary between animals and humans...and I wouldn't be suprised if science in the future proves that we have no reason.)

 

If we remove the insticts, the feelings, the emotions, all the "irrationality" of society, and in the process, boost how "rational" we are, I feel we become more Human.

 

...Er, the question of art? Well, note that none of us are truly rational beings, as of yet. Prehaps, if there is a truly rational being, he may be able to find a rational basis for art, music, prehaps event beauty, using reason to find out everything. Think of the Golden Ratio, but take it to the extreme, with laws governing everything. Maybe the trul rational being may be able to find arts, and then such arts would be so pleasing to other rational beings.

 

An example of how art and rationality can co-exist if the idea of a truly rational (and infinite) being, "God", or some religions' conceptions of God as being so powerful. He created Earth, the galaxy, and the Human Race...which is artwork, no?

 

But I don't see art as really key...to me, figuring out what is true is far more important. One person's art is another person's trash, thanks to the irrationality that governs us all (so irrationality really doesn't help create beautiful works of arts, since another person just sees it as something stupid). If everyone is "truly rational", then there would be an art that everyone would enjoy, which would be "true art". That, or if everyone shares the same assuptions and irrational desires, but that is something that I feel is pretty unrealisitc...as well as sort of robbing us of choices. (Not to mention that these desires and assumptions could not be true at all. I feel that truth should be preferred over any possible delusion, even when the delusion would be far better for humanity to submit to.)

[tk102]

My assertions are: Emotions are irrational. Reason is rational.

 

The conclusions I draw from this:

 

- On beauty: If beauty is defined as mathematical elegance, then there is room for beauty in a purely rational society. edit: same as what you said above, SS001

 

- On art: If art is done in an attempt to be "beautiful" as defined above (fractal geometry?), then I suppose there could be some form of art in a purely rational society. The purpose of the art would be to express rational beauty. It's questionable, however whether there would be any artists who would desire to express beauty, since that desires are often irrational.

 

- On love: Love is completely irrational and would have no place in such a society.

[SilentScope001]

My assertions are: Emotions are irrational. Reason is rational.

 

I concur. Very good definitions.

 

- On beauty: If beauty is defined as mathematical elegance, then there is room for beauty in a purely rational society.

 

Okay.

 

- On art: If art is done in an attempt to be "beautiful" as defined above (fractal geometry?), then I suppose there could be some form of art in a purely rational society. The purpose of the art would be to express rational beauty. It's questionable, however whether there would be any artists who would desire to express beauty, since that desires are often irrational.

 

Hm...true. But I do think that prehaps these rational beings would use it to document beauty, prehaps because it would fufil some rational desire. Prehaps, as a way to increase hapiness, or to gain power and money within society (so that the person can live), or to sway people who are irrational, communicating their ideas in a message (that is, of beauty) so that the irrational people can understand. Or, maybe, it is the same way as a historian would document a War. The historian and the Rational Being can do it because it is there, and it is meant to be documented.

 

- On love: Love is completely irrational and would have no place in such a society.

 

I concur. Love is an emotion. But there can be prehaps some sort of "rational bonds" can suffice...A rational person may not love God, but he worships him because God gave him the ability to live and to think. A rational person may not love his wife, but he sees his wife as a valuable person who he respects, who gives him economic aid, good advice, and a way to help him progress in rationality.

--

I know it probraly doesn't sound appealing what I say, but if there is a society of truly rational people, then the benieft I see is that we will be able to find out what is the truth. If one desires something other than the truth, then rationality really wouldn't help.

 

EDIT: Is it even possible that there can be a society of truly rational beings? What I really desire is at least one person who would be truly rational, and this one person would then figure out the Truth. In fact, what I fear is that if there are more than one rational person, what if the rational beings get into an argument? Both people, being rational, would have good reasons, and may be able to justify everything they say, using evidence. Then if this occurs, we return back to before.

[tk102]

If art is used as documentation of beauty, it should be called "documentation".

 

Irrationality is what allows us to express individualism. If we eliminate irrationality we become a Hive. There is irrational beauty in being able to choose to give up individualism for that sake of community. But if you're born rational, you haven't given anything up because you had no individuality to begin with. You're just a cog in the machine.

[SilentScope001]

If art is used as documentation of beauty, it should be called "documentation".

 

Hm...wonder if that would be the first thing the rational person would say?

 

Irrationality is what allows us to express individualism. If we eliminate irrationality we become a Hive. There is irrational beauty in being able to choose to give up individualism for that sake of community. But if you're born rational, you haven't given anything up because you had no individuality to begin with. You're just a cog in the machine.

 

So irrationality, our feelings, that is what make us indivudals? I can understand that, but prehaps one can be an indivudal if he is indeed the only one who is indeed Truly Rational, while everyone else is not. He would be an indivudal too, in fact, a very unique individual...some people might share similar interests and similar irrationality...but this one person has no irrationality.

 

With this one person who is unique and have no irrationality, the problem arises...how can he communicate his findings? Should he communicacte his findings to us irrational beings, who probraly won't understand them, unless he finds some way of appealing to our irrational? Prehaps he might even die without sharing the Truth, but at least we get the knowledge that at least one human understands what is true.

[Achilles]

My assertions are: Emotions are irrational. Reason is rational.

 

The conclusions I draw from this:

 

- On beauty: If beauty is defined as mathematical elegance, then there is room for beauty in a purely rational society. edit: same as what you said above, SS001

 

- On art: If art is done in an attempt to be "beautiful" as defined above (fractal geometry?), then I suppose there could be some form of art in a purely rational society. The purpose of the art would be to express rational beauty. It's questionable, however whether there would be any artists who would desire to express beauty, since that desires are often irrational.

 

- On love: Love is completely irrational and would have no place in such a society.

The way you define it, I would also be against it. Fortunately for me, I don't share your definition

 

At the risk of sounding like a flame, I think you've seen Equilibrium too many times

 

I think it's absolutely rational to value art, artistic expression, etc. I think it's absolutely irrational to attribute the nature of these things to a supernatural source.

 

Let me give you an example for how I view the distinction:

 

My kids, while playing in the house, break a lamp. Of course I am going to be upset because I am a human being and I have emotions. I can opt to respond rationally by asking them to help clean up the mess and replace the lamp out of their allowance. Alternatively, I could respond irrationally by berating them, threatening to ground them until they are 50, etc.

 

Now of course, they shouldn't have been playing in the house anyways; it's irrational. But the fact of the matter is that they're human (e.g. they make mistakes) and they're kids (e.g. they are still learning). I think there's a huge difference between situational irrationality (like the example above) and systemic irrationality such as religious doctrine. One we learn from (hopefully) and the other limits our learning.

 

I think it's a little bit of slippery-slope fallacy to assume that societal emphasis on rationality precludes any need for love, beauty, or art. If you think about it, which group tends to do more for the artistic community: the liberal, atheistic left or the conservative, theistic right? I know this is gross generalization, but I think you get my point.

[SilentScope001]

My kids, while playing in the house, break a lamp. Of course I am going to be upset because I am a human being and I have emotions. I can opt to respond rationally by asking them to help clean up the mess and replace the lamp out of their allowance. Alternatively, I could respond irrationally by berating them, threatening to ground them until they are 50, etc.

 

Now of course, they shouldn't have been playing in the house anyways; it's irrational. But the fact of the matter is that they're human (e.g. they make mistakes) and they're kids (e.g. they are still learning). I think there's a huge difference between situational irrationality (like the example above) and systemic irrationality such as religious doctrine. One we learn from (hopefully) and the other limits our learning.

 

But why are you upset about the kids breaking your lamp? That's some emotion right there.

 

Also, how do you know that having the kids pay for the allowance would be effective? You take it on faith? There's another emotion.

 

How do you know they're just kids? How do you know they are just learning? Why do you excuse them?

 

Eh, we have different definitions of rationality...but emotions are bad in my definition. You can indeed be rational and have emotions, but the emotions trumpt rationality.

 

Now of course, they shouldn't have been playing in the house anyways; it's irrational. But the fact of the matter is that they're human (e.g. they make mistakes) and they're kids (e.g. they are still learning). I think there's a huge difference between situational irrationality (like the example above) and systemic irrationality such as religious doctrine. One we learn from (hopefully) and the other limits our learning.

 

But situational irrationality leads to systemic irrationality. By systemic irrationality, I mean the Left, the Right, the religions, the non-religions, the philopshies, basically everything that is based on "belief".

 

You believe that, in this situation, you will teach the kids a listen by fining them. You believe they are just kids, and such. This is a form of Idea, that is, that you teach kids via this method. It's a system, but to be fair...what makes you prefer this system over other systems. You say it works, why? Because of this data, why you trust it? Sooner or later, you will say that that this is because you feel it to be true.

 

I think it's a little bit of slippery-slope fallacy to assume that societal emphasis on rationality precludes any need for love, beauty, or art. If you think about it, which group tends to do more for the artistic community: the liberal, atheistic left or the conservative, theistic right? I know this is gross generalization, but I think you get my point.

 

Well, none of us are truly rational. After all, even you said that you are okay with feelings, which I feel is irrational, and therefore limits our rationality. You are fine with that, but...well...I guess I'm unconformtable with it. None of us can find out if a truly rational person loves beauty, art, or love...we can only guess and specualte. What I want to do is encourge some sort of effort to create a "truly rational" person, so that we can indeed find out.

 

Oh, and the Conservative, theistic right makes much better pictures than the liberal atheistic left. That's just my preception (and irrational) view of art though.

[tk102]

At the risk of sounding like a flame, I think you've seen Equilibrium too many times

Never even heard of it, much less seen it. *views wiki*

 

It's true, I like to take an argument to the extreme to see where to draw the line and to bring competing values into relief. After reaching whatever realization that I reach, the second step is, of course, to walk back towards practicality. You beat me there.

[Achilles]

Never even heard of it, much less seen it. *views wiki*

You aren't missing much except some pretty gunfights.

 

It's true, I like to take an argument to the extreme to see where to draw the line and to bring competing values into relief. After reaching whatever realization that I reach, the second step is, of course, to walk back towards practicality. You beat me there.

Fair enough. So we're in agreement that promoting rationality isn't going to turn us into The Borg? We still get to see the value in healthy, loving relationships and stuff like that?

[tk102]

So we're in agreement that promoting rationality isn't going to turn us into The Borg? We still get to see the value in healthy, loving relationships and stuff like that?

Yes, I agree. Both rationality and irrationality have their place in human nature and there's a time and place for each.

[SilentScope001]

Yes, I agree. Both rationality and irrationality have their place in human nature and there's a time and place for each.

 

Guess that sort-of stops my crusade to destroy the irrational once and for all. Oh well...hopefully others will listen. Guess it's just my personal viewpoint, with no proof whatsoever that it is bad.

 

EDIT: Still, a wonder: wouldn't the rational basically serve to justify whatever the irrational says. You eat a chip, and the irrational tells you "Chip tastes yucky!"

 

And now what you rationally say about the chip? It has bad texture, the chip has a not so appealing look, it has too much sugar, etc. You wouldn't say "I don't like the chip because I personally believe this chip is bad."

 

Take the example of the Chip, and then expand it to everything, from beliefs, to ideologies, etc. Could the rational be a slave to the irrational?

[Achilles]

Yes, I agree. Both rationality and irrationality have their place in human nature and there's a time and place for each.

I guess the next question would be are you referring to situational irrationality (whoops, I made a mistake) or systemic irrationality (my life is better for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster)?

 

If it's the latter, could you please help me understand how we benefit from systemic irrationality and show me how that benefit is exclusive to systemic irrationality?

[Darth InSidious]

I'm sorry for the subjective response, but the society you describe, TK, quoted in the above post by Achilles, sounds utterly hollow to me. Everything would seem to be created to generate the illusion of creative, (in my experience) chaotic force existing where it did not...Art would be there to simulate the existence of art, to satisfy a lack-of-emotion.

 

Such a society would be stable, true, but would lack inspiration, IMO, and stagnate. It would also be immensely boring, IMO. Emotions make things interesting, whether they are pleasing or otherwise.. Without them, I think life would be very dull.

 

I don't care particularly regarding what would allow us to advance our technology, or reach the stars, myself. I'm quite happy with our tech as it is, for the most part.

 

I've tried many times, and when you attempt to rationalise creativity, without letting the creativity come first, you get nowhere. Ideas are like a torrent of water, in my experience, anyway, overriding everything else, blotting everything out, not making sense frequently, being a jumbled mess, but unless you let them come, what you create will be bland.

 

On a side-note, has anyone here read either Arthur C. Clarke's The City And The Stars or Michael Frayn's A Very Private Life?

 

I'd recommend them both first as books, and secondly in relation to this kind of subject...