Help me Prove the Irrational is Wrong...

[Achilles]

If I could, I'd like to voice my growing concern with the strawman argument that rationality is somehow the antithesis of emotion.

 

I think anyone that advocates the elimination of emotion is putting themselves in a very difficult position indeed. Rather than view emotion as the opponent of rationality, I would submit that emotion can act as a catalyst for either rational or irrational behavior.

 

The argument that either I can either love or be rational rings just as hollow (and terrifying) as the argument that I can either kill people or be rational. It's a false dichotomy.

 

If I am angry, I have a myriad of ways in which I can respond. Similarly, if I am happy I have a myriad of ways I can respond. Getting married seems like a perfectly rational way to express love for another person. By the same token, I think that we can all agree that Tom Cruise's couch-jumping on Oprah was not rational.

 

So it's not a matter of being emotional creatures or automatons. This is an apples and radial tires comparison.

[tk102]

could you please help me understand how we benefit from systemic irrationality and show me how that benefit is exclusive to systemic irrationality?

Would string theory be considered a systemic irrationality? (I guess we'll wait for the results Large Hadron Collider this November before weighing in on that.)

 

But I know where you're going...Benefits from systemic irrationality include generally:

 

1. Belief that we have a purpose in living. (a priori)

2. Belief that we are more than the sum of our molecules.

3. A means to handle grief and fear associated with death.

4. A relationship between ourselves and the cosmos.

 

I think 1 and 2 would be rejected outright by rationality and so rationality would have to address the irrational desire for purpose and self-realization. 3 isn't trivial... the fact that we die may be biggest reason there is religion at all. Rationality ascribes little comfort in this area. When you take all these into account and try to address 4, well, it's a big, cold universe isn't it?

[SilentScope001]

I think anyone that advocates the elimination of emotion is putting themselves in a very difficult position indeed. Rather than view emotion as the opponent of rationality, I would submit that emotion can act as a catalyst for either rational or irrational behavior.

 

Prove it.

 

It is emotions after all that leads us to do behavior to begin with. It hampers our ability to choose. I submit that anything dealing with emotion, that you cannot explain, to be irrational. It's how I see it.

 

After all, a person feels angry at a certain ethnic group. He believes that ethnic group is harming him, taking away his liberties. Rationally, he should wage war against this ethnic group, no, and what he does in the process of that war is not "genocide" because he really is fighting for freedom? Of course, that is a person we will hate, and we will question: "Well why do you hate this ethnic group? I think they are actually helping you out, not harming you!" That hatred is an irrational emotion, and it is that emotion that motivates the rest of his behaviors, so his "rational" belief in murdering off an ethnic group...isn't really rational.

 

But if you cannot prove the above statement sastiofactorily (emotion leads to rational behavior) , if you cannot prove it by using logic...I would have to dismiss it as being irrational.

 

The argument that either I can either love or be rational rings just as hollow (and terrifying) as the argument that I can either kill people or be rational. It's a false dichotomy.

 

I'm talking only about a truly rational person.

 

Only I in this disccuion am advocating for the destruction of emotions, but that's a failure. But we are rational creatures, of course. We are a combination of rational (able to think) and irrational (able to feel) traits. I see the irrational as dominating the rational however. You can love, and still be a rational person. But the love is an irrational emotion. You use your rationality to justify your love...but it is your love that act as the basis for the rationality.

 

If I am angry, I have a myriad of ways in which I can respond. Similarly, if I am happy I have a myriad of ways I can respond. Getting married seems like a perfectly rational way to express love for another person. By the same token, I think that we can all agree that Tom Cruise's couch-jumping on Oprah was not rational.

 

But that's an appeal to "We all believe the same things!"

 

That does not make it true...or rational at all. What really happens is that we all share the same irrational beliefs concering society (marriage is okay, couch-jumping is not).

 

But just because everyone believe in something, does that make it true or is that a mere delusion?

 

To put it in prespective, once, everyone believed there was Intelligent Designers. To you, that's an unjustified belief. But everyone believed it at the time. By your logic, God must exist, since everyone "reasonably" believes God exist. That's pretty fallacious logic right there.

 

And I could also question...maybe couch-jumping is better than marriage as a way of expressing love?

 

So it's not a matter of being emotional creatures or automatons. This is an apples and radial tires comparison.

 

Again, prove it.

[Darth InSidious]

If I could, I'd like to voice my growing concern with the strawman argument that rationality is somehow the antithesis of emotion.

Of course

I think anyone that advocates the elimination of emotion is putting themselves in a very difficult position indeed. Rather than view emotion as the opponent of rationality, I would submit that emotion can act as a catalyst for either rational or irrational behavior.

From experience, being angry, in love, happy, sad, depressed etc rarely is a rational thing.

The argument that either I can either love or be rational rings just as hollow (and terrifying) as the argument that I can either kill people or be rational. It's a false dichotomy.

Quite. I believe that it is impossible to be totally rational and remain emotional. Emotion is to be driven by an intense mental state brought about by the nervous system autonomically, and as such is independant of reason. By the same gesture I submit that to be totally emotional is to be completely irrational.

If I am angry, I have a myriad of ways in which I can respond. Similarly, if I am happy I have a myriad of ways I can respond. Getting married seems like a perfectly rational way to express love for another person. By the same token, I think that we can all agree that Tom Cruise's couch-jumping on Oprah was not rational.

I submit that getting married is not rational. It ties you to one sexual partner, reducing the likelihood of the continuation of your genetic code into the next generation, which would seem to be the purpose of life if one does not take into account supernatural explanations. You also shackle yourself to one person whom you may argue with, share few interests after 20 years, and will eventually grow old and less attractive to you.

 

I don't argue that couch-jumping is particularly rational either or indeed the mark of a sane man - quite clearly it isn't either of these...

So it's not a matter of being emotional creatures or automatons. This is an apples and radial tires comparison.

It is, perhaps, about striking a balance?

[Jae Onasi]

We are emotional creatures, and I don't think we could ever be devoid of emotion. We all are wired so differently there's no way we could all agree 100% on every single rational activity. In fact, people who have extreme trouble expressing emotions are sometimes diagnosed with schizoid affective disorder. I agree with Achilles that it's not the emotion itself that's the issue, but how you deal with the emotion that's important.

[Achilles]

Would string theory be considered a systemic irrationality? (I guess we'll wait for the results Large Hadron Collider this November before weighing in on that.)

Yes, we'll have to withhold judgment until all the facts are in

 

In all seriousness, I don't know that you could presume to categorize a scientific hypothesis as "irrational" unless it's completely bereft of any reason. Or if the scientist trying to advance the hypothesis fails to abandon or modify it when shown to be false. I suspect that you know this already

 

But I know where you're going...Benefits from systemic irrationality include generally:

Ok, let's take them one at a time.

 

1. Belief that we have a purpose in living. (a priori)

Benefit from systemic irrationality: No.

Benefit exclusive to systemic irrationality: No.

 

First off, delusion that purpose comes from a higher power is not a benefit. This would be like stating that the people plugged into The Matrix are benefiting from the experience. While some might argue that they do, you presume that a rational person would favor that existence if they had all the facts.

 

Secondly, purpose is not exclusive to systemic irrationality. If that were true, then athiests, Buddhists, and any other non-theists would be completely devoid of purpose. One example of an atheist with a sense of purpose would sink the hypothesis. I will volunteer if need be

 

2. Belief that we are more than the sum of our molecules.

Benefit from systemic irrationality: Yes.

Benefit exclusive to systemic irrationality: No.

 

I think I could use the same argument as above without the element of delusion. Unless of course, this is a veiled reference to a soul or an argument for dualism.

 

3. A means to handle grief and fear associated with death.

Benefit from systemic irrationality: Yes.

Benefit exclusive to systemic irrationality: Probably.

 

Do you find it odd that, as a rule, atheists, Buddhist, and other non-theists don't fear death, but theists do? If the afterlife is such a wonderful place, why don't Christians congratulate each other when one finds out the other is dying?

 

"The doctor just told me that I have 3 months to live."

"That's awesome! I'm so excited for you! You're going to *LOVE* Heaven."

 

I think fear of death is a byproduct systemic irrationality. The rational view of death is that it's an unavoidable part of life. Make the most if the time you have. No need for consolation.

 

4. A relationship between ourselves and the cosmos.

Benefit from systemic irrationality: No.

Benefit exclusive to systemic irrationality: No.

 

There are billion galaxies with a billion stars in each one. Assume that each star has an average of 10 planets orbiting it. That's roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Yet, most devout theists believe that intelligent life only exists here.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

 

No, I don't agree that systemic irrationality helps to highten our awareness of the cosmos. Systemic irrationality tells us that there's only intelligent life here and that we're here because God loves us.

 

Similar to the examples above, I think non-theists do have a very strong relationship with the cosmos. For some the relationship is so powerful that they devote their lives to studying it.

 

I think 1 and 2 would be rejected outright by rationality and so rationality would have to address the irrational desire for purpose and self-realization.

Why are those things patently irrational? Maslow's needs hieracrhy is not the product of religious doctrine. Self-realization is the pinnacle of that model. Same goes for Buddhism which is definitely non-theistic. I think it's incorrect to assume that purpose and self-realization are irrational.

 

3 isn't trivial... the fact that we die may be biggest reason there is religion at all.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Personally, I subscribe to the "ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" school of thought

 

Rationality ascribes little comfort in this area.

I respectfully disagree based on the argument that I presented in that section.

 

When you take all these into account and try to address 4, well, it's a big, cold universe isn't it?

Parts of it are, but some parts have hydrogen suns like our own

[Achilles]

From experience, being angry, in love, happy, sad, depressed etc rarely is a rational thing.

Is being angry a rational response if the guy behind you rear-ends your car?

Is being in love a rational response when you have an attractive partner that you have a lot in common with?

Is being happy a rational response when you get a promotion at work?

Is being sad a rational response when your beloved pet dies?

Is being depressed a rational response when tradegy hits you?

 

These are all very rational responses. Now we can either compound our rationality with our response or we choose to be irrational.

 

It's rational to grit your teeth and check for injuries in the other car before giving this bum the evil eye. It's not rational to grab the baseball bat from your back seat and proceed to beat his windsheild in.

It's rational to court your significant other but it's not rational to stalk them.

It's rational to celebrate that new promotion, but probably not rational to run around the office screaming, "y'all gonna be my biotches now!".

It's rational to remove your pets feeding dish from your home because it accentuates your saddness, however it's probably not rational to slit your wrists because Fluffy's gone.

It's rational to recognize that you're in a funk because of some major life change, but it's probably not rational to drown your sorrows in alcohol.

 

Therefore I maintain that emotion and rational behavior are not opponents. As Jae pointed out, people that have difficulting distinguishing the two are often diagnosed with behaviorial disorders.

 

Quite. I believe that it is impossible to be totally rational and remain emotional. Emotion is to be driven by an intense mental state brought about by the nervous system autonomically, and as such is independant of reason. By the same gesture I submit that to be totally emotional is to be completely irrational.

I respectfully acknowledge that this your belief, however I still disagree with it. Perhaps a sounder argument will persuade me. As it stands, your argument seems to be that we are complete slaves to our emotions and have no ability to control our responses to them whatsoever. Again, I feel this is a false dichotomy.

 

I submit that getting married is not rational.

I think my father and half my friends would agree with you

 

It ties you to one sexual partner, reducing the likelihood of the continuation of your genetic code into the next generation, which would seem to be the purpose of life if one does not take into account supernatural explanations. You also shackle yourself to one person whom you may argue with, share few interests after 20 years, and will eventually grow old and less attractive to you.

I think you're branching off into natural selection's impact on sexual behavior and the social theory of serial-monogamy. I'd be happy to pick this up in another thread, but I think it would take this one off-topic.

 

Suffice it to say, I disagree with your conclusions.

 

It is, perhaps, about striking a balance?

I agree, however I think the specific dialog needs to address the location of the fulcrum

[SilentScope001]

Is being angry a rational response if the guy behind you rear-ends your car?

 

Is reacting to the guy hitting your car a rational response?

 

Is being in love a rational response when you have an attractive partner that you have a lot in common with?

 

Is defining one partner as "attractive" a rational response?

 

Is being happy a rational response when you get a promotion at work?

 

Is you desiring promotion a rational response?

 

Is being sad a rational response when your beloved pet dies?

 

Is having a pet a rational response?

 

Is being depressed a rational response when tradegy hits you?

 

Is calling something a tradgey a rational response?

 

These are all very rational responses. Now we can either compound our rationality with our response or we choose to be irrational.

 

But they AREN'T rational at all. You tell me you prerfer one thing, but the why, you fail to tell me. Why do you see someone as attractive? Why do you desire that your car goes unharmed? Why did you enslave an animal by having it be a pet?

 

You can argue that it is impossible to get rid of the irrationality. You can argue that the irrationality is what makes us human. You cannot argue that rationality co-exist peacefully with irrationality, since you start off with an irrational premise in all of those arguments (calling something a tradgey, desiring a promotion). You do not justify them, and I call things you cannot justify as being irrational.

 

Give me a reason why you prefer, say, not having your car gets hit. Is it due to the fact you have to pay money to repair it? But why you want to repair it? You want to repair it so that the car looks good, but why you want the car to look good. But why must the car look good? So that everyone would like your car, and by extension you. But why do you want people to like your car...and you?

 

The questioning has to stop sooner or later, and you are going to tell me that is self-evident. This is irrational, and the inablity to explain your predjuices, your desires, and your wants is not very comforting at all.

 

EDIT: I would at least like someone to address what I say, somehow. Just a question...

[Emperor Devon]

But they AREN'T rational at all. You tell me you prerfer one thing, but the why, you fail to tell me. Why do you see someone as attractive? Why do you desire that your car goes unharmed? Why did you enslave an animal by having it be a pet?

 

With questions like this you might as well challenge the need for individuality itself. You seem to be saying that the various preferences and thoughts people have are irrational, but you've run into a bit of a conundrum there. For those things to be irrational, there obviously has to be something rational to make it so - otherwise, it simply is.

 

What you seem to be getting at is why people have irrational thoughts when there is some sort of grand rational answer to everything - but how exactly do you determine what it is? That is what's open to individual interpretation, and why people think the way they do - have you ever heard of someone who freely said "What I think is irrational"? I would think not. People are either of the assumption that what they think is the one, great, correct answer to everything, or a matter which doesn't have one at all - such as whether chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla.

 

The idea that someone could believe in something they consider irrational is contradictory - obviously something irrational is incorrect, and you believe is not. To say you believe in the irrational is saying "The incorrect is correct." Obviously such a thing is impossible.

 

Everyone believes they are correct - but the question is, are they? However, that's one thing that neither of us is capable of answering. We have just as much personal bias as they do - to us, the grand truth to everything is what we believe in. But by acknowledging our own personal bias, the question of 'is what I think really correct?' arises - but it's unanswerable. We have only our own minds and opinions to work with, and their interpretations of the rational or not are nothing but interpretations. If there is a grand answer to everything, how do we know that it is real? You may think so, but others might not - and they do not believe themselves to be incorrect, and you have just as much personal bias as they do to what's true and what isn't, yet both of you think you're right. This makes on one wonder "What if everything is just a delusion?" but it's a question without any meaning. You are as incapable of holding no opinion as you are of having no thoughts.

 

Again - to us the truth is the truth, but not to others. Neither of us can prove it - if there really is a grand answer to everything, the fact that we could believe it could be personal bias. But we can still believe in things that are entirely correct (but that something is incorrect is a personal bias of mine). So how is what we believe correct? But it is correct; that's why we believe it is. What a contradiction! Yet the fact that we still hold opinions remains, despite whether they are correct or not - and then that goes back to your original question, and repeats itself all over again. Discussions about topics like this just go in circles.

 

So in essence, when you ask "Why do people believe in the irrational?" you might as well be asking "Why doesn't everyone agree with me?"

[SilentScope001]

The idea that someone could believe in something they consider irrational is contradictory - obviously something irrational is incorrect, and you believe is not. To say you believe in the irrational is saying "The incorrect is correct." Obviously such a thing is impossible.

 

A note: The irrational is just feeelings and emotions. The irrational does not have to be wrong. For example, a person may irrationally believe that there is a Flying Spagettia Monster, and everyone laughs at that person's belief...'til the dady the FSM arrives and proves himself to be true. Or a person may irrationally believe there is no God, and the person is actually correct.

 

The problem is that these people believed in what they see to be the truth becuase of the irrational. What they believe has nothing to do WITH what is actually the truth. It is a person's irrational feelings that cause him to "concidentlcally" choose the right observation, but it is all a concidence that his irrational guided him the right direction, and if the irrational is modified, he may very well go in the wrong direction. I don't want to believe in something just because I irrationally believe in it, because I am at the mercy of the irrational.

 

So in essence, when you ask "Why do people believe in the irrational?" you might as well be asking "Why doesn't everyone agree with me?"

 

Actually, I am merely asking "Why do people beleive in the irrational?" I admit that I think irrationally, and I am not asking for people to agree with me. I have feelings, thoughts, and desires, all that is illogical. I know that I am irrational. I just hate being irrational.

 

For example, I believe in God. I have an irrational feeling that God exists (faith). It is this irrational belief that causes me to worship God. We glorify this irrational feeling, because it is by this feeling that God communicates to us and gets us to worship him. I love my faith. I also know it is irrational.

 

As for if something really is true, I am indeed an ethical relativist. However, I see that many people object to this theory, so instead, I state that there may indeed be an Objective Truth that actaully states what is really true (this is different from the Subjective Truths that each one of helds to be true). However, we will be unable to find an Objective Truth.

 

There is one way that an Objective Truth may be created: One infinte being. A thing that has access to everything and all data and has access to rationality. It is this being that dictates Objecitve Truth, since he indeed knows everything, and therefore, be able to justify his arguments, provide standards for those arguments, provide proofs to prove his standards are correct, etc. .

 

This Infinte Being does not have to be God. It may be the ones who contorl the Brain in the Vat. It could be your subconcisous. It could be aliens. Maybe its this hypotheical Truly Rational Man that I desire. It does not matter...for whomever that is an infinite being will be able to find the Objective Truth, if it exist.

 

If, however, there is no Infinite Being, and if there never will be an infinite being, then there is indeed no such thing as an Objective Truth. There must also be only one infinte being, because if there are other infinite beings then the infinite beings might get in an argument and a fight, causing for two or more different Objective Truths to be created (and thereby defeating the purpose of finding an Objective Truth...since there are different Objecitve Truths, this is just the same as two people having different beliefs).

 

Judging from the fact that many people don't see the need to postulate for the existence of an infinite being, then this excierse in commenting on "Objective Truth" is sort of silly, except prehaps as a proof for ethical realtivism (without an infinite being, there is no real verison of Truth...for example, if God exist, and his power is limited, he is not an infinte being and therefore has limits, and due to his limits, his judgement is basically just as good as ours...).

 

In which case, if it is true, the irrational is supreme...and you cannot prove that the irrational is wrong. There is no real reason to trust rationality anymore.

 

As for the answer: Why do people not agree with me? Because they got different irrational beliefs than I do. (which will probraly reminds me to go and write about warfare between the Ideas, and how the wars ends)

 

You are as incapable of holding no opinion as you are of having no thoughts.

 

The Skeptics of Anicent Greece did try this. They wanted to suspend judgement in everything, because they cannot have any proof. They acted upon the apperances, what appear to be true, but they never actually trusted it to be true. They lived life as normal, but a little smug that they don't have to worry about finding the truth.