Possibly what I was getting at when I said that reason can be better understood in the context of situational exigencies. — Tom Storm

Similarly Apel talks about the "rational determination of situational boundary conditions" - I like the phrase situational awareness.

Reason comes in several flavors. We talk about reason being the process of drawing logical inferences. We talk about reason as being the 'antidote' to superstition and magical thinking, as in the Enlightenment tradition. We talk about pure reason (a priori) as opposed to practical reason (working things out). As a method, reason is generally seen as a superior approach for establishing truth. What would Feyerabend say?

Much of my understanding of reason comes from the old secular humanist clash with religion, where reason is seen as being in opposition to faith, as a 'more reliable' tool for guiding life choices. I'm sure an anti foundationalist position like postmodernism would consider reason to be a kind of fetishized relic of an approach fading in relevance. But I guess if you are arguing against the use of reason you are using reason... My cursory familiarity with Richard Rorty suggests that he thought reason could be replaced with acts of creative imagination - perhaps this was also Nietzsche's approach?

It would be real swell if all discussions on this forum were like his one, nice job comrades that was a worthwhile read.
Thanks.

This is pretty much where I was heading. Do you think that is just a congenital or organic deficiency? Or did they lose or renounce the ability to be rational? — Pantagruel

On the question of whether sociopaths are born, not made, I believe if we looked at the historical evidence, most, if not all, of them showed signs that it's always been in them, which means they were born with that trait. Ted Bundy, as an example, at one point tried to convince the public that he wasn't, that he got to be that way because of his own doing -- obsession with sexual violence on film. He claimed he grew up in a normal family environment. etc. This is all bullshit. (though it was true that he didn't suffer from abuse, or that he grew up in a normal family) If you looked at the footages of his capture, when he was being moved from one location to another, or just walking to the courtroom escorted by the police, you'd see how he didn't have command of his mind. Somehow, this man, during his interview, wanted so much to show a side of him that's sophisticated and educated. A far cry from the irrationality of how he victimized those women.

So whats your point?
— Benj96

You say:

I think it is possible to be criminal and also rational in the case that the law is irrational.
— Benj96

From that I infer that in cases where a law is rational, you think criminal acts are not rational. I was disagreeing that is necessarily true. — T Clark

Agreed. Rational does not necessarily include ethical. But since when each adjective (or noun) is used, we tend to mean an ideal trait: Good, Beautiful and True blended. So, it is bothersome to think of a rational criminal. But I can't see any reason not to, for example, distinguish between an extremely effective, rational criminal and an dull witted one who gets caught all the time.

So, it is bothersome to think of a rational criminal. But I can't see any reason not to — Bylaw

Agreed.

I'm finding some of the discussion odd. That's not a cover for saying people are wrong. For example, when intuition was being discussed at one point it seemed to be related to ontology. Intuitions of first principles or something. As opposed to how I generally think of it in relation to direct appraisals: reading other poker players, realizing that it is likely a crime is now occuring in the bank you are in even though you see no criminal but rather through reading body language, art experts detecting instantly a counterfeit painting. As experienced, generally, fast processes where a conclusion is reached without a rational verbal process. (there may be unconscious processes that are rational, but often this needs to be blackboxed).

Also that rationality or reason includes specific positions. Like if you believe in God and argue that God exists or cannot be ruled out or any other what was called pre-Enlightenment beliefs are part of your argument or conclusions, then it is not reason/rationality. I think that is a poor use of the terms. These are process words. Nouns describing what one does, not what one believes or concludes. I think that's a better use. Or was Newton not reasoning because he had non-relative space time in his conclusions? For example. Because he was wrong or partly wrong or had incorrect metaphysical assumptions. (not even mentioning his other beliefs)

I suppose I am also saying that one can reason one's way to an incorrect conclusion. Or one we do not know if it is correct or not. Or two people can be reasoning together and disagree, or be being rational and yet have opposed opinions. It's not a content issue.

Otherwise we then later find that oh, he wasn't reasoning because it turns out he was wrong. Or, oh she wasn't being rational because it turns out she was wrong.

I don't think that's a good way to use these terms.

This then also leaves room for non-rational processes that might be useful.

when intuition was being discussed at one point it seemed to be related to ontology. Intuitions of first principles or something. As opposed to how I generally think of it in relation to direct appraisals: reading other poker players, realizing that it is likely a crime is now occuring in the bank you are in even though you see no criminal but rather through reading body language, art experts detecting instantly a counterfeit painting. As experienced, generally, fast processes where a conclusion is reached without a rational verbal process. — Bylaw

My understanding of intuition comes from introspection, reading some eastern philosophy, and 30 years handling and using data as an engineer, not from any specific scientific source. Given that context, here's how I see it. From the minute we are born, probably earlier, we make observations, take in information. Very little of it comes from any kind of formal learning and very little of it is easily expressible in propositions, which are really the only things that formal rationality, logic, can process. We don't learn the answer to a bunch of true/false questions. We learn, build, a model of the world and how it works. I am very aware of the model I carry around in my head and how I use it in dealing with the world and making decisions.

For me, intuition is just using the model of reality we all carry around with us to evaluate new information and make decisions. It doesn't supersede reason. As I've noted previously in this thread, intuitive knowledge comes first and can then be validated using rational methods if the situation requires it.

Very little of it comes from any kind of formal learning and very little of it is easily expressible in propositions, — T Clark

Ah, yes, thanks for mentioning propositions. That was another point mentioned that I thought was odd/interesting. I don't think that a proposition ever has to be involved, though one might be able to translate many (most?) intuitions into a proposition.

We learn, build, a model of the world and how it works. — T Clark

I think we might also be born with some talents with intuition. Now, sometimes it might be that we are born with a tendency to notice/focus on X, and so we are better at intuition in that area. But I am not sure that covers all precocious skills in intuition.

It doesn't supersede reason. — T Clark

No, But we do have a couple of ways of making decisions/drawing conclusions, and I get the feeling that some people, and a higher percentage in online discussion forums with academic topics think we would be better off with just one. Further they seem to believe they are truly distinct processes, where I think that reason needs intuition, that it is used as a part of reason, a needed to in every reasoning process. I think many people confuse how reason looks on paper with what actually happens in their minds. And what happens in their minds uses intuition in lots of tiny support steps. But for some reason they think, often, we would be better off if we had only reason/rationality - formal, logical verbal analysis and deduction, induction, abduction working their little engines. So, yes, I think intuition comes first in the process, though I do think one might be able to deduct from a model (a scientific one, say) the focus of research. But even after a burst of intuition to hypothesis, any research project, and paper-writing process, any thining about what one is doing, will include (one notices, if one dives phenomenlogically in) thousands of instances of intuition.

Ah, yes, thanks for mentioning propositions. That was another point mentioned that I thought was odd/interesting. I don't think that a proposition ever has to be involved, though one might be able to translate many (most?) intuitions into a proposition. — Bylaw

Formal logic applies to propositions. Other forms of rationality don't necessarily. Still, as @javra and I discussed previously in this thread, what we call rationality often seems to lead to reductionist results that don't take into account broader perspectives and indirect effects, e.g. environmental damage.

I think we might also be born with some talents with intuition. Now, sometimes it might be that we are born with a tendency to notice/focus on X, and so we are better at intuition in that area. But I am not sure that covers all precocious skills in intuition. — Bylaw

This makes sense to me, although I don't have any specific knowledge about it.

No, But we do have a couple of ways of making decisions/drawing conclusions, and I get the feeling that some people, and a higher percentage in online discussion forums with academic topics think we would be better off with just one. Further they seem to believe they are truly distinct processes, where I think that reason needs intuition, that it is used as a part of reason, a needed to in every reasoning process. I think many people confuse how reason looks on paper with what actually happens in their minds. And what happens in their minds uses intuition in lots of tiny support steps. But for some reason they think, often, we would be better off if we had only reason/rationality - formal, logical verbal analysis and deduction, induction, abduction working their little engines. — Bylaw

I agree with this.

Formal logic applies to propositions. Other forms of rationality don't necessarily. Still, as javra and I discussed previously in this thread, what we call rationality often seems to lead to reductionist results that don't take into account broader perspectives and indirect effects, e.g. environmental damage. — T Clark

Yes, logic can be overrated. Dewey differentiates between two fundamental original orientations in philosophy, the "lower" practical-technical and the "higher" governing form whose province was the determination of what was best and desirable. Aligning itself with tradition, in order to consolidate and justify its governing role, this is where we can see reason give way to rationality (rationalization).

Dewey paints a beautiful picture of rationality as an exaggerated and over-logicized form of thinking:

And this brings us to a second trait of philosophy springing from its origin. Since it aimed at a rational justification of things that had been previously accepted because of their emotional congeniality and social prestige, it had to make much of the apparatus of reason and proof. Because of the lack of intrinsic rationality in the matters with which it dealt, it leaned over backward, so to speak, in parade of logical form. In dealing with matters of fact, simpler and rougher ways of demonstration may be resorted to. It is enough, so to say, to produce the fact in question and point to it—the fundamental form of all demonstration. But when it comes to convincing men of the truth of doctrines which are no longer to be accepted upon the say-so of custom and social authority, but which also are not capable of empirical verification, there is no recourse save to magnify the signs of rigorous thought and rigid demonstration. Thus arises that appearance of abstract definition and ultra-scientific argumentation which repels so many from philosophy but which has been one of its chief attractions to its devotees.

At the worst, this has reduced philosophy to a show of elaborate terminology, a hair-splitting logic, and a fictitious devotion to the mere external forms of comprehensive and minute demonstration. Even at the best, it has tended to produce an overdeveloped attachment to system for its own sake, and an over-pretentious claim to certainty. (from Reconstruction in Philosophy)

(bolded by me)

Dewey paints a beautiful picture of rationality as an exaggerated and over-logicized form of thinking: — Pantagruel

Great quote. Thanks. I'll look up "Reconstruction in Philosophy."

It's a great read, everything that is good about Dewey, insightful, direct, beautifully written.

It's a great read, everything that is good about Dewey, insightful, direct, beautifully written. — Pantagruel

Free on Amazon.

:up: On Gutenberg too.

From that I infer that in cases where a law is rational, you think criminal acts are not rational. I was disagreeing that is necessarily true. — T Clark

Well it is a matter of perspective is it not?

The law may be rational in that it seeks to say, stop organised crime selling unregulated and potentially dangerous drugs and not paying taxes on the profits.

And it may be rational to the person to buy such a drug (like cannabis where it is illegal) to ameliorate the suffering of say a family member that is dying of cancer (to improve appetite, decrease pain and improve mood).

In this case both the law is rational (from the lawmakers perspective) and rational to the person (on an ethical basis for their relative that is suffering beyond what anyone can/is doing for them with legal means.

Its a complex situation. There is validity on both sides yet in conflict with one another. I can only imagine a third option is the solution. A distinction may need to be made between the different purchasers of an illegal drug based on their intentions/reasons for doing so. Or perhaps a loosening of the law and enforcing of regulation on the availability and quality of the drug to safeguard civilians and put pressure on the criminals to conform with regulation.

Well it is a matter of perspective is it not? — Benj96

If I need money to finance a drug habit or to take a trip to Las Vegas and I rob a store to get it, that is not necessarily irrational. It's illegal and immoral and likely to have very bad consequences for the criminal, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational either.

If I need money to finance a drug habit or to take a trip to Las Vegas and I rob a store to get it, that is not necessarily irrational. It's illegal and immoral and likely to have very bad consequences for the criminal, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational either. — T Clark

Yes absolutely. You're quite right T Clark. It's not irrational in that it serves the purposes of the criminal (assuming they get away with it). But despite it being rational to then its selfish.

And morality is based on the difference between selfishness and selflessness.
So in the case I have, you could argue that the person buying illegal drugs that have a relieving effect on suffering to help the person they love is a selfless act.

They are putting themselves in direct harms way (the law and criminal penalties they may face) just to help another person feel better through illness/tough times.

The law tries to take these factors into consideration. It is up to a judge to determine whether someone did something disappoving to the law, in the sole interest of love, in an effort to save/reduce their loved ones.

So the criminal stealing to go gamble in Las Vegas is a very different situation from the "criminal" ignoring the law to aid another's suffering.

Its a simple as that. The law and public are generally sympathetic to such cases hence why laws are often challenged and amended based on the people they didn't consider in their sweeping generalisation (being applied equally to all civilians). Sadly such people which I believe have purely good intentions, dont always win in those contentious debates and end up serving prison time.

Not all people in prison are neccesarily "bad people". Its merely a mistake that they took responsibility for even if they didn't do something inherently harmful. Or at least made their best attempts not to.

Humans are flawed. Civilians are flawed. And the justice system they create is equally flawed and requires revision in cases where it wasn't applied correctly that's why we have an appeals process.
The law is doing its best to emulate the social conscience (at leaat in democracies).

Do you think that's a fair/balanced assessment?

Do you think that's a fair/balanced assessment? — Benj96

Yes, it's fine. But you and I are focusing on different things. I'm looking only at rationality and you're taking a broader perspective. Nothing wrong with either way, but they don't match up.

Yes, it's fine. But you and I are focusing on different things. I'm looking only at rationality and you're taking a broader perspective. Nothing wrong with either way, but they don't match up. — T Clark

I thought we agreed that it was rational from the point of view of both sides. Are you saying only the law is rational? Or only the criminal is rational?

Or am I correct in saying (from a border perspective of course), that both sides make good arguments depending on the quality of their moral intention.

I don't see how you and I are actually disagreeing.

I don't see how you and I are actually disagreeing. — Benj96

I think you're right.

And morality is based on the difference between selfishness and selflessness. — Benj96

It often does frame things this way, but I think it is a faulty model. It presumes, I think, that if left to my interests, I would not take care of others. It is as if the self is selfish. But the self includes empathy. We are built for this also. When we model this as 'he needs to learn how to be selfless, for example, we are presuming that he doesn't have a natural urge to reduce the suffering of others.' I am not making a pollyanish case for humans. I see all sorts of urges in us, but I want to stress that some of them, built into the self, are empathetic urges. Once our assumes are that empathy, for example, is not part of the self. That we must set aside the self to get to empathy and care for others, we are telling selves that having a self, coming from a self, is a problem. IOW guilt and shame slip in a apriori needs for good communal behavior, kindness and so on. We do not have to set aside the self's (even) immediate desires to be empathic and kind. I hope this doesn't seem like mere pedantry or nitpicking over terms. I think this model has actually done tremendous damage to us and society. We are mammals, with complicated limbic systems, and while there is controversy around mirror neurons, SOMETHING is us ties the self inextricably to others, directly. We aren't komodo dragons or wasps.

Which is why you need to do a lot of propaganda work to set the stage for things like the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda. You have to fight this core portion of the self very hard, for a long time, preferably from early childhood. And for generations.

Another angle on this: someone is judged as selfish for not sharing their stuff. I think it's actually better to tell them they are not being selfish enough. I think there is even better language possible, but this, I think is more accurate than saying they are being too selfish.

If it was a komodo dragon or a wasp, on the other hand, telling them to be more selfish implies a misunderstanding of the nature of those creatures.

That we must set aside the self to get to empathy and care for others, we are telling selves that having a self, coming from a self, is a problem. — Bylaw

Well, obviously we must have a physical self. But I think it pertains more to "only thinking about yourself" or being "self-absorbed". That to me is selfishness. When others needs for resources come second and only second to your own.

It is reflected well by the sentiment that so many mothers tell us when we are small "the world doesn't revolve around you!"

Selflessness for me is not about not existing as a physical self, but rather it's about extending your awareness and consideration beyond your own needs to envelope those of others.

We naturally think of our family as part of our" sphere of self, a sort of extension of our own needs" - the thing that ought to be protected, helped, shared resources with etc for the simple fact that we love them, and having them around, safe from struggle and suffering.

There is a fine line however, to have others best interests at heart you cannot force them to do what you want. You must always allow others to have freedom of choice and simply demonstrate through action why what you think is good for them is indeed the case and let them choose if they want to agree with you or not.

This fine line is a tumultuous struggle we frequently find ourselves in with our own parents especially during puberty when our independence from them is really developing. What might be in your best interest according to your father/mother may be forced on you with scorn, and that can lead to arguments.

Parents have to recognise the point when their fully dependent child has grown up and developed their own personality, and thus respect their boundaries, trusting that they know what is best for themselves. Otherwise an overbearing parent will foster a non compliant child, which may do the wrong thing just in spite of the fact that they feel they aren't allowed to make their own choices.

At the end of the day, no parent can prevent their kids from making their own mistakes/get hurt. They need to. To learn. And only then do children or young adults realise that all along their parents really did have the best intentions for them, and they come back to them. They agree to be an "extension of self", part of the family, "togetherness" rather than "otherness - non self"

Which is why you need to do a lot of propaganda work to set the stage for things like the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda. You have to fight this core portion of the self very hard, for a long time, preferably from early childhood. And for generations. — Bylaw

Very true Bylaw. Propaganda is based on deluding people away from the idea of "self", pitting them against eachother. Its most evil and unsettling I think.

Another angle on this: someone is judged as selfish for not sharing their stuff. I think it's actually better to tell them they are not being selfish enough. I think there is even better language possible, but this, I think is more accurate than saying they are being too selfish. — Bylaw

Yes it depends on what idea of "selfish" one has. If they think it is about serving their own physical self, gathering and not sharing resources - then they are being materialistic selfish/physicalist selfish.

But if they think selfishness is about propagating a sense of unity, sense of oneness, to others, then as you said they ought to be more "selfish" and disperse resources and their wisdom etc. In this case they are being "spiritually/Immaterially/non material selfish".

Two very different meanings of the word selfish. One more ethically permissable than the other. A good grounds for argument indeed. And likely a good way to fight propaganda as you pointed out.

Well, obviously we must have a physical self. But I think it pertains more to "only thinking about yourself" or being "self-absorbed". That to me is selfishness. When others needs for resources come second and only second to your own. — Benj96

I have more trouble with having selfless as a positive term than selfish as a negative one. One you have the pair of terms, I think it causes problems. As far as needs for resources, I do think we, being closer to ourselves, need to prioritize ourselves. It's when we take more than we need that a real problem comes in.

It is reflected well by the sentiment that so many mothers tell us when we are small "the world doesn't revolve around you!" — Benj96

Sure. But that's a long way from praising selflessness. Further my main point is that once we make it seem like we have needs and desires about ourselves, and other people have needs and desires for themselves, so we have to be selfless, it is as if we have no needs to be kind to others or built in desires to reduce suffering and to suffer with. We have those desires also and they are a part of the self. We don't need to lose the self to be kind and empathetic.

Selflessness for me is not about not existing as a physical self, but rather it's about extending your awareness and consideration beyond your own needs to envelope those of others. — Benj96

Then it's not selflessness. Words are tools and I now know more about your use of the term and I can work with that. But the word is selfless. Homeless is without a home. Remorseless indicates no remorse. And so on. Yes, words can shift meanings over time, but I think this word should not have positive connotations. And yes, there would be something wrong with us if we were only concerned about ourselves. But then generally speaking mammalian selves, especially the social mammals' selves don't need to be extended to have concerns for others.

Generally from there, I agree with that first response: the parent child scenario. I don't think we have particularly different ideas of what is good between humans, at least at this level of abstraction.

Very true Bylaw. Propaganda is based on deluding people away from the idea of "self", pitting them against eachother. Its most evil and unsettling I think. — Benj96

Often the idea is to fight the natural identification with the other. The natural tendency to not like seeing others suffering. To fight this, indoctrinate that they are not like you, not human, not deserving of empathy. You have to find a way to reduce that part of the self that cares for others. Note: that means making them have less self.

Often the idea is to fight the natural identification with the other. The natural tendency to not like seeing others suffering. To fight this, indoctrinate that they are not like you, not human, not deserving of empathy. You have to find a way to reduce that part of the self that cares for others. Note: that means making them have less self. — Bylaw

Yes quite right. Proganda and alienation of others, not seeing them as human (like self) I think is fundamentally based on fear and denial. Fear that in doing so you will realise just how vulnerable and mortal you are. And denial well...as a natural must to defer that fear. For them it's wholly rational to seek out /make themselves Gods amongst men (invincible/untouchable) , but for the rest (those suffering) it is entirely unjustified/Immoral.

Yes it depends on what idea of "selfish" one has. If they think it is about serving their own physical self, gathering and not sharing resources - then they are being materialistic selfish/physicalist selfish.

But if they think selfishness is about propagating a sense of unity, sense of oneness, to others, then as you said they ought to be more "selfish" and disperse resources and their wisdom etc. In this case they are being "spiritually/Immaterially/non material selfish". — Benj96

It's prior to thinking. We have parts of ourselves that when watching someone suffering feel pain ourselves. It's not like we need a philosophy, though a philosophy can affect this or patch damage from bad parenting or propaganda. We have this as part of ourselves. There are exceptions with psychopaths and sociopaths. But in general we don't need people to not have as much self. We just need to make sure we don't take away that part of the self that cares about others and identifies with them.

It is in one's self interest to see others as human and identify with them, care about them. Because that is part of the social mammal self. You're a partial person if you don't

But in general we don't need people to not have as much self. We just need to make sure we don't take away that part of the self that cares about others and identifies with them. — Bylaw

Yes. Bravo :)