just like to introduce a third category - the non-rational. This would encompass the irrational, but since that is generally a pejorative term, I want a neutral term that would then also include neutral and positive choices and conclusions that are not arrived at rationally. IOW not arrived at through some logical, verbal process. Evolution seems to have selected for creatures (us I mean) who use a number of processes to arrive at choices and conclusions. 1) I can't see a way to avoid this, given how incredibly time consuming (and then also circular) it would be to arrive at everything using reason. 2) I think people can actually be quite good at non-rational processes. 3) Rational processes are dependent on non-rational processes. We are always deciding things like 'I have checked my reasoning enough' and 'I have a feeling I should check X again' and all sorts of time prioritization, focus prioritization, sense of the semantic scope of terms, interpretations of metaphors without analysis and more through non-reasoning 'feelings' 'intuition' 'gut senses' 'nagging doubts' 'sense of completenesses' and much more. We are mixed bags cognitively.I think that we try to believe that we are rational but most of us are following the prompts of our subjective wishes, which are often far from rational. If anything, we try to justify our subjective intentions in a rational way as a means of self justification. — Jack Cummins
Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons? — mrnormal5150
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.