A Rational mind.

[floppit]

I believe there is no such thing, no mind is totally rational - nor totally irrational, even people with advanced dementia often serve some purpose with what looks like random behaviour and words.

Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals. Even a fundy will wear a jumper on a cold day, completely reasonable, even carry a raincoat after looking at the forecast, both reasonable and wise (as long as it wasn't the 7 day forecast!). Reasoning is not contained within groups, there are no 'Oasis's of clear thinking' never have been, no cleansing area where the countless traps of irrational thought are washed away. There's just the verb, just the process and attempt, to try or not to try on that given day, with that subject, in that company.

I'd go one further too, I believe our human attributes, the things we hold dearest about ourselves and others all follow the same rules of not being absolute, a transient quality to kindness, loyalty, honesty, cruelty, empathy, selfishness - all there, present, but just as verbs, to do or not do on any given day.

I think we love people based on the attributes we see in them, but is it the person we love or the acts? I suspect it is the latter and as our minds bind person and acts together we always risk bitter disappointment when we see the transience of attributes and we always see it, eventually. Still, I love people (see opening statement).

I fight against my instinct to have heroes, I'm not tempted towards famous ones but some people I know tempt me, sometimes. I fight against having enemies too, those I see in disrespectful ways - I fail on both counts frequently (see opening statement).

It's all just verbs, no us or them, no deeply consistent me, just endeavour.

[Trolldor]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

It can essentially be transposed to any facet. If you move to far away from yourself, you lose the ability to accurately portray the image.

[Animavore]

Actually I'm perfectly rational to the max.

Willy-warmer biscuit.

[jamest]

I believe there is no such thing, no mind is totally rational - nor totally irrational, even people with advanced dementia often serve some purpose with what looks like random behaviour and words.

Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals.

How can one do something if one does not possess the innate ability to do it? What you say makes no sense.

Further, if there is no such thing as 'reasoning', then how have you formulated this opinion of yours?

Lastly, your perspective is constructed upon an assumed ontology regarding what 'we' are: 'human'. Our inadequacies are constructed by you upon this utter assumption. Therefore, it is devoid of all philosophical merit.

[charlou]

^^^ Tough crowd you have here, floppit.

Interesting OP, and I tend to agree ... One to ponder upon.

[PsychoSerenity]

I believe there is no such thing, no mind is totally rational - nor totally irrational, even people with advanced dementia often serve some purpose with what looks like random behaviour and words.

Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals.

How can one do something if one does not possess the innate ability to do it? What you say makes no sense.

Further, if there is no such thing as 'reasoning', then how have you formulated this opinion of yours?

floppit said "not contained within specific individuals" which I would take as - while the majority of people do possess the innate ability for certain behaviours, that doesn't mean that they must always do them. From general life experience, it certainly seems that way, and until there's a breakthrough in the free will or determinism argument, while we live in a society that assumes free will, I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking this way.

Lastly, your perspective is constructed upon an assumed ontology regarding what 'we' are: 'human'. Our inadequacies are constructed by you upon this utter assumption. Therefore, it is devoid of all philosophical merit.

Well in day to day life most people do stick to some basic assumptions because otherwise they would never get anything done. But to declare something as "devoid of all philosophical merit" seems rather foolish unless you're omniscient.

[jamest]

Lastly, your perspective is constructed upon an assumed ontology regarding what 'we' are: 'human'. Our inadequacies are constructed by you upon this utter assumption. Therefore, it is devoid of all philosophical merit.

Well in day to day life most people do stick to some basic assumptions because otherwise they would never get anything done. But to declare something as "devoid of all philosophical merit" seems rather foolish unless you're omniscient.

Floppit made some pretty hefty epistemological claims about 'reason', founded upon an assumed ontology, whilst using reason itself (we assume) to formulate his/her opinion. If you can find philosophical merit in that, then you don't know much about philosophy.

[floppit]

Floppit made some pretty hefty epistemological claims about 'reason', founded upon an assumed ontology, whilst using reason itself (we assume) to formulate his/her opinion.

Would you mind quoting where you believe I did this? I'm particularly interested in the epistemological claims about 'reason' and some pointers to where exactly you see the assumed ontology. I must admit I'm quite intrigued.

[jamest]

Floppit made some pretty hefty epistemological claims about 'reason', founded upon an assumed ontology, whilst using reason itself (we assume) to formulate his/her opinion.

Would you mind quoting where you believe I did this? I'm particularly interested in the epistemological claims about 'reason' and some pointers to where exactly you see the assumed ontology. I must admit I'm quite intrigued.

You talk about the limitations of reason - what it is, how it functions, and its usefulness (or lack thereof). Also, you talk about 'us' in terms of being human. That is, essentially, we are human (you say). Indeed, you use this as the basis of your judgement about reason.

The thing is, epistemology is embraced by ontology/metaphysics. What can be known or understood very-much depends upon the nature of our being. You simply assume too much for your conclusion to have any philosophical merit.

[Trolldor]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that sophistry overrode basic genetics.

[jamest]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that sophistry overrode basic genetics.

Sophistry?

You really should abstain from philosophical discussions, especially if you have no intention of learning something from participating. And that's about as nice as I can put it.

[floppit]

You talk about the limitations of reason - what it is, how it functions, and its usefulness (or lack thereof).

Did I? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Although, as I said before I'm intrigued, quote me from the OP - I'd like to see the epistemological claims about 'reason' and the assumed ontology. It might give me a clearer idea what you're trying to get at.

[Hermit]

Another interesting topic, Floppit.

Coincidentally, I commented on the rôle of reason in relation to our conduct just a few hours before you started this thread. In What did you once believe that you later found out was crap? I said:

• One history course I did concerned itself with the fall of the Ancien Régime in France, and one of its strands focused on the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who apparently made the notion of "The Light of Reason" fashionable once again. (This course caused me to turn my study schedule upside down. I set out to do one year of history, two years of philosophy, three of sociology and four of anthropology and finished up jettisoning anthropology and sociology as soon as I was allowed to instead, but that is just an aside.) I was impressed by the rôle reason apparently played in history, but the more I studied, the more I had to revise that opinion. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Reason, while not ineffectual, is a vastly overrated factor in historical developments. That recognition also helped me realise that it is also a lot less of a determinant of our behaviour as individuals (and no, I am not excluding myself) than we would like to think.

In reply to a question by FBM, who asked if I once believed that the enlightened life was founded on or led by Reason, and that now I don't believe that, I continued:

• More than that. I think that at this stage 'the enlightened life' is more of a concept with potential than reality. The more I studied the more I was forced toward the unpleasant recognition that the concrete ways of our reasoning are ultimately predicated by our material existence. Adam Smith's seminal publication on capitalism is an example, particularly when he wrote about "the invisible hand" and how private greed leads to public good. His eloquent and noble work was doing no more than being a rationalisation after the fact of an economic process that was already well on the way with some extrapolation thrown in as a bonus. Today it serves us as a justification for being rich or more likely, aspiring to be rich. [sarcasm]We need not worry about barely subsisting and the starving billions of humans, because we deserve what we got and they have the opportunity to get where we are. Oh, if only they tried, but that's entirely up them, isn't it?[/sarcasm]
  
  Despite these opinions I am an optimist. Some time in the future most of us may come to the recognition that there is no such thing as free will, that everything that happens is ultimately determined. Curiously, (at first sight) that very recognition will give us the means to engineer our freedom, dignity and 'self determination' into existence much like the Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his shoelaces.

Hopefully this copypasta will refocus the discussion on the topic at hand, and leave the testosterone-riddled boys to continue their stoush in the privacy of their own dialogue.

[floppit]

Another interesting topic, Floppit.

Coincidentally, I commented on the rôle of reason in relation to our conduct just a few hours before you started this thread. In What did you once believe that you later found out was crap? I said:

• One history course I did concerned itself with the fall of the Ancien Régime in France, and one of its strands focused on the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who apparently made the notion of "The Light of Reason" fashionable once again. (This course caused me to turn my study schedule upside down. I set out to do one year of history, two years of philosophy, three of sociology and four of anthropology and finished up jettisoning anthropology and sociology as soon as I was allowed to instead, but that is just an aside.) I was impressed by the rôle reason apparently played in history, but the more I studied, the more I had to revise that opinion. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Reason, while not ineffectual, is a vastly overrated factor in historical developments. That recognition also helped me realise that it is also a lot less of a determinant of our behaviour as individuals (and no, I am not excluding myself) than we would like to think.

I'll be honest that history in depth isn't my strong point, I don't think I have the knowledge base to weigh up the extent to which reasoning determined historical events. Intuitively though, I would be inclined towards thinking reasoning is overrated as a factor, largely because it takes more effort than retaining old beliefs and forming belief from an emotive base (curiously, this paragraph probably displays a good dose of confirmation bias!).

I'm not sure I was all that clear in my first post. I like reason and I think it is effectual, just not something sustainable over each and every detail in life. I think the conscious effort that reasoning takes limits either it's breadth or it's depth. Even where a subject is picked out and effort readily given we are still left fighting our own bias, whether rooted in our emotions or past beliefs. Still though, I think it is possible to be rational - some of the time, and worthy.

• More than that. I think that at this stage 'the enlightened life' is more of a concept with potential than reality. The more I studied the more I was forced toward the unpleasant recognition that the concrete ways of our reasoning are ultimately predicated by our material existence. Adam Smith's seminal publication on capitalism is an example, particularly when he wrote about "the invisible hand" and how private greed leads to public good. His eloquent and noble work was doing no more than being a rationalisation after the fact of an economic process that was already well on the way with some extrapolation thrown in as a bonus. Today it serves us as a justification for being rich or more likely, aspiring to be rich. [sarcasm]We need not worry about barely subsisting and the starving billions of humans, because we deserve what we got and they have the opportunity to get where we are. Oh, if only they tried, but that's entirely up them, isn't it?[/sarcasm]
  
  Despite these opinions I am an optimist. Some time in the future most of us may come to the recognition that there is no such thing as free will, that everything that happens is ultimately determined. Curiously, (at first sight) that very recognition will give us the means to engineer our freedom, dignity and 'self determination' into existence much like the Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his shoelaces.

I must admit that I hadn't initially thought in terms of determinism versus free will - for myself, it certainly feels like conscious laziness at times. I think of careful reasoning as a slow and painstaking process and TBH I can't be bothered to take it up for topics like ghosts. Then of course there are the topics I care about, but that opens it's own can of worms, the fact I care adds emotion and usually some a priori investigation. As I'm typing this I'm thinking of all the times I've searched Google scholar, carefully, to find (of course) what I was looking for and how rarely I've given equal time and effort to find the opposing evidence. Perhaps that's just me though...

*That's not to say I support free will or determinism, I don't.

[jamest]

• One history course I did concerned itself with the fall of the Ancien Régime in France, and one of its strands focused on the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who apparently made the notion of "The Light of Reason" fashionable once again. (This course caused me to turn my study schedule upside down. I set out to do one year of history, two years of philosophy, three of sociology and four of anthropology and finished up jettisoning anthropology and sociology as soon as I was allowed to instead, but that is just an aside.) I was impressed by the rôle reason apparently played in history, but the more I studied, the more I had to revise that opinion. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Reason, while not ineffectual, is a vastly overrated factor in historical developments. That recognition also helped me realise that it is also a lot less of a determinant of our behaviour as individuals (and no, I am not excluding myself) than we would like to think.

The extent to which reason has shaped our history is irrelevant to the issue at-hand. No one is going to argue against the notion that our history has largely been shaped by greed; pride; ego; etc.. But that proves nothing and shouldn't have been used to argue for the ineffectuality of reason. We are evolving entities, and the extent to which we can evolve depends largely upon our ability to transcend the animalistic drives that are innate within us. Significantly, we can only transcend those bounds via the use of reason.

More than that. I think that at this stage 'the enlightened life' is more of a concept with potential than reality. The more I studied the more I was forced toward the unpleasant recognition that the concrete ways of our reasoning are ultimately predicated by our material existence. Adam Smith's seminal publication on capitalism is an example, particularly when he wrote about "the invisible hand" and how private greed leads to public good. His eloquent and noble work was doing no more than being a rationalisation after the fact of an economic process that was already well on the way with some extrapolation thrown in as a bonus. Today it serves us as a justification for being rich or more likely, aspiring to be rich. [sarcasm]We need not worry about barely subsisting and the starving billions of humans, because we deserve what we got and they have the opportunity to get where we are. Oh, if only they tried, but that's entirely up them, isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Despite these opinions I am an optimist. Some time in the future most of us may come to the recognition that there is no such thing as free will, that everything that happens is ultimately determined. Curiously, (at first sight) that very recognition will give us the means to engineer our freedom, dignity and 'self determination' into existence much like the Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his shoelaces.

Now, that's what you call sophistry. Though more derogatory words could be used.

Hopefully this copypasta will refocus the discussion on the topic at hand, and leave the testosterone-riddled boys to continue their stoush in the privacy of their own dialogue.

How pompous.