RoR: Forum

Joe wrote:
>Daniel, that post was worthless.

Well, it might pay to look a little more critically at Aristotle's methodology now and then, regardless of what I say.

>It's clear you want to make some kind of differentiation, but you not only didn't say what that was, but why it should be. You have yet to show how reasoning works different when it's obviously related to survival, and when it's more removed. Well, prove it! Prove that we have two ways of thinking, one when it matters, and one when it doesn't. Enjoy.

But this isn't my line of argument. And I did say what, and why - several times. Let's recap to clarify. My suggestion is that rationality is what separates us from animals. The evolution of this quality gives us our trump survival advantage: objective knowledge (tho we have also retained many animal qualities). However, it turns out that this new quality has unexpected consequences: that we can study knowledge for its own sake, as well as for our survival. As an "end in itself" - which is, after all, what human life is, no? So I'm suggesting that we don't use our reason just solve problems of survival - tho as I've said, we do that very effectively - but to also solve problems that seem - to me at least - to be only distantly related to survival. Like listening to music, reading science fiction, or collecting model cars for example. (I also speculate that it is through objective knowledge that we develop what we roughly call a "self" - something that animals don't seem to have)

You're welcome to debunk this idea of course. The most effective way would be to show a direct link between, say, an amateur interest in Fermat's problem and that person's survival. (I don't regard Fermat's problem as merely "mental masturbation" either, though this too is an distinctly human trait!).

But I don't really see why you would be so keen to. It's hardly an absurd speculation, though it undoubtedly could be wrong. We think to survive. Animals think to survive. But only humans also think about things *not* directly related to survival. So it's a sharper way of differentiating the two.

- Daniel

Post 61

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 1:52pm

Daniel,

Your last post seems to state an obvious fact. We have complex minds, and in addition we have volition. That means we can use our minds for things animals don't. Although just having volition is the real point. We can even use our bodies in ways that contradict survival. Running marathons, for instance, isn't the slightest bit healthy. We hardly need to talk about reading and philosophizing when jumping out of an airplane is available.

I think that part we can all agree on that part. It's true we can choose to do all kinds of things that have nothing to do with survival (even that hurt our chances of survival). And that road leads directly to ethics. Since we can choose any action, whether destructive or beneficial, we have to have a way of selecting between the different choices. We need a moral code. So the fact that we can do anything doesn't in any way state that we should do anything. Just because you can hit your head against a wall intentionally doesn't mean you should.

And the short answer is, if it's a worthless endeavor that wastes time and provides no actual benefit, you shouldn't do it. Simple enough. Every moment wasted on nothing is a moment you could have used better.

Now if someone were to argue that listening to music, reading science fiction, and collecting cars were valueless actions, that just waste your time and resources and you gain nothing from them, what would you say? You seem to be saying that that is the case in order to show that it has no impact on survival. And yet, you talk about these things as if they were valuable still. So which is it? Are they really worthless actions that you gain nothing for? Or do you gain something? And if you gain something, what is it that you gain? And why does that matter in the slightest?

I think if you put your mind to it, you could actually figure out on your own what values are gained from these pursuits and others. And from the values you gain, you can show why that's useful for a human to gain. I discussed this stuff in my article Human Needs.

Post 62

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 6:00pm

Joe,
Seems like a good time for a check on the problem we are trying to solve.
It seems to me that we agree in the first place that rationality – the attitude of being open to argument and experience – is a matter of choice.

You took the matter a couple of steps further however, by saying:
1) That the commitment to be rational is in itself – and can only be - an entirely rational one
2) That the decision to be rational is compelled by nature anyway – for that those who are not rational will die

My criticisms are aimed at these two additional steps. Is this a fair statement of your position? If it is, I can very briefly restate my criticisms so you may see them as clearly as possible. If it is not, then great! I may have it wrong, and we may have more in common on these issues than I first thought.

- Daniel

Post 63

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:59am

"1) That the commitment to be rational is in itself – and can only be - an entirely rational one"

You could certainly have an irrational 'commitment' to being rational, but it's not much of a commitment, is it? But no, that wasn't my point.

My argument was that you can have a rational basis for being rational. That is, rationality is not some mind game that has no real world consequences. The fact that it does impact your life provides a reason to be rational.

2) That the decision to be rational is compelled by nature anyway – for that those who are not rational will die

And again, no. Rationality is a commitment to using reason (a plethora of cognitive tools) to identify the world around us. The degree to which we correctly identify the world is the degree to which our actions will be effective. So rationality is useful to us, as it would be to any living being that possessed it.

Will we die if we're not rational all the time? Probably not. People manage to live with a bit of irrationality in their lives without it being fatal. Of course, that's selective irrationality, and only in some areas of their lives. A man who decides he can fly off a skyscraper is going to die. But usually irrationality is only accepted when the consequences don't seem very large.

So it's not that you die immediately if you ever think an irrational though. But if the person contradicts his reason, he will acquire an inaccurate view of the world. When he acts on that, the consequences of the action will not be what he expects. He may fail to acquire a value, or may hurt himself in countless ways (jumping of a skyscaper is an easy one). And sometimes, if he's not careful, he won't even understand that it was his irrational premises that caused the problem. Fundamentally, a flawed view of reality is harmful, specifically because reality doesn't conform to your beliefs. That's why irrationality is harmful. And that's why rationality is beneficial.

So I disagree with what you think is my answer for why we are compelled by nature. It's easy to show that certain forms of irrationality are unlikely to kill you right out. That doesn't in any way imply that being irrational in those cases is morally optional. Death is not the standard of morality, life is. Life isn't the state of not being dead. It's a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action (read my Meaning of Life article for more details). And irrationality undermines that process because it creates an incorrect understanding of the world.

Post 64

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:57am

(Apologies for my late response - I didn't realise you'd replied)

Joe wrote:
>My argument was that you can have a rational basis for being rational.

OK. And *my* point is that this idea leads to the logical problem that Eric spotted: that only those who have adopted a rational attitude in the first place will be impressed by the rational arguments for adopting it!!! That's why to solve this paradox - let's call it "Brunner's Problem" - he hypothesised that perhaps some people are somehow "born" (ie: genetically) rational, and others simply are not.

To me this is a rather dangerous (not to mention false) solution, and all the more so in that it was proposed in innocence. Such proposals highlight that "Brunner's Problem" is, in fact, no mere abstract word-game. So, as an alternative escape from this logical problem I would propose (after Popper) what I would call a *minimum concession* to irrationalism: simply, that the adopting of a rational attitude requires a leap of faith - even a rather sustained one in some circumstances. After which, one hopes, such an attitude will be its own reward.

Joe continued:
>I disagree with what you think is my answer for why we are compelled by nature. It's easy to show that certain forms of irrationality are unlikely to kill you right out. That doesn't in any way imply that being irrational in those cases is morally optional.

This is a trickier issue. Perhaps my argument can be most simply put by saying if something's *not* a matter of personal choice - that is, if one is compelled by external forces, natural or otherwise - then it does not seem to me to be a *moral* decision. Or at least, not much of one.

In short, a choice one is not free to make cannot be a moral one. But judging from your post you seem to allow a fair amount of latitude, so perhaps we are close enough on this point.

- Daniel

Post 65

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:30pm

Daniel, it's like you missed my last 20 posts.

Do you really think that being rational is "optional" and has no impact on your life at all? You can't think of a single reason people might be rational? I'm not going to bother going over this again.

And your second point is worse. Obviously you are free to take any action you want (as in free will!!!), but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. You're not seriously suggesting that any decision that affects your life can't be considered moral, are you? That's insane. What kind of morality are you left with?

Post 66

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:00pm

Joe writes:
>Daniel, it's like you missed my last 20 posts.

Joe, most of your replies have actually gone off on a tangent - replies to what you think I'm saying, not what I've said. This impression is bolstered by the number of times you've said you basically don't understand what I'm saying.

>Do you really think that being rational is "optional" and has no impact on your life at all? You can't think of a single reason people might be rational? I'm not going to bother going over this again.

As previously, none of this relates to what I've said.

First of all it does not address the original logical problem Eric pointed out. You did not address it in your previous post either but merely repeated it - as if repeating it somehow solves it! Ideas have consequences, Joe - often ones the holders don't realise. This is what I'm trying to show you. (It's quite a well-known problem actually. It would be worth your while attempting to grasp it.)

Joe continues:
>And your second point is worse. Obviously you are free to take any action you want (as in free will!!!), but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. You're not seriously suggesting that any decision that affects your life can't be considered moral, are you?

On this second point: it seems you're trying to have your cake and eat it to, but you simply don't realise it. You want rationality to be moral *and* compulsory at the same time. The weakness of this idea is obvious, and your sentence above only shows this again. Further, as I've pointed out before, criteria like whether it "affects your life" are so loose they are practically meaningless anyway, and this just adds to the confusion. Sometimes you want this to mean physical survival; other times you want this to mean existential issues, like whether it makes you happy or not. (Incidentally, just because they are not mutually exclusive does not mean they are always mutually compatible - this seems to be the other basic logical error you're making above).

Take a simple moral dilemma like finding $1000 in the street. You can justify both keeping it *and* not keeping it according to whether it "benefits your life" just by playing with the terms. That's all I think you're doing, though you don't realise it.

You *should* go over these issues again, but perhaps not with me - though I'm perfectly willing to continue - but with yourself.

- Daniel

Post 67

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 8:41pm

You're getting angry, aren't you. That's good, but don't let it blind you. Don't hate the people I pointed out to you; you'll only waste energy on people who don't understand the implications of their actions. Don't forgive them because they don't know what they're doing, but don't despise them for it either.

It's difficult, Matthew, so difficult ... especially with it being election time here in the Land of the Sheeple, with the incessant clamouring for more of other peoples money, and more laws to protect people from themselves ...

Seriously, how do SOLOists handle the naked rage that comes from paying attention to modern politics & the underlying philosophies?

Or am I alone in waking up somedays, and seeing almost every person I pass in the street as being one small step removed from a common mugger or hostage-taker - with the key differences being that they think they're being moral, and that I can't defend myself against them the way I would against any other kind of criminal ...

>:-(

Post 68

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 8:45pm

A good way to vent is Zombie movies. You have a few rational individuals striving their hardest for the greatest value of all (their own lives and the re-establishment of civilization) striving against the mindless canabilistic hoards.

They usually end tragicly but the value is in the struggle.

---Landon

Post 69

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:02pm

True enough - zombie movies do seem to profile reality as is seems these days... lol.

Post 70

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:34pm

Duncan,

you asked:

Seriously, how do SOLOists handle the naked rage that comes from paying attention to modern politics & the underlying philosophies?

You know that politics is just an expression of the societal philosophy. Philosophy is the foundation. Fix the foundation instead of trying to straighten the roof. Things will not change overnight. Get to the young and work on any adults you think capable of a rational thought. Watch zombie movies too :-)

Ethan

Post 71

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 7:38pm