Not exactly, I am just saying that rational thought processes may be going on that we are not aware of. There doesn't seem to be any logical contradiction or impossibility in that conjecture. — Janus
I see no reason to believe that rational thought processes must be executed consciously. If the brain/mind can do strict logic or any other form of associating ideas consciously,why could it not carry on with such processes in the absence of conscious awareness. I mean, maybe it can't do that; but if that were so we would need evidence and an argument to establish it. — Janus
I agree that intuition probably works by associating images, impressions and concepts. Alchemy, astrology, acupuncture, hermeticism and homeopathy are some examples of ways of intuitively associating qualities of elements, things and processes via perceived similarities or affinities. There is a logic to this, which is not empirically based in our modern scientific understanding, but I would call it rational nonetheless, — Janus
You start out associating intuition with discredited ways of knowing - alchemy, astrology, etc. I don't understand that. Intuition is not something esoteric or mysterious. It's an everyday process our minds use all the time. Then you describe those intuitive processes as a kind of rationality. It seems like you are identifying rationality as anything the mind does to collect information or solve problems. — T Clark
So I am not claiming that these processes of reasoning are deductively valid or empirically based, but they are different ways of balancing, measuring and associating things which have their own kinds of logic. — Janus
Seems like you are changing the meaning of the word "logic" in mid-discussion. — T Clark
In cultures existing prior to, or unaffected by, our current conception of empiric and propositional logic-based reasoning, would you say there was no distinction between rational and irrational thinking, or reasonableness and unreasonableness? — Janus
That's a great question and I know it's directed at T Clark. If rationality is using knowledge to achieve goals, then probably. But there is always a foundational set of values by which a culture measures itself. Many people believe that reason is synonymous with The Age of Reason - what we call knowledge and the practices this engenders must be arrived at without superstition and with no logical fallacies. At one end of the continuum this is probably scientism. — Tom Storm
Sociopaths can be highly strategic and able to make complex plans, but they are not rational — L'éléphant
Just a final question to consider. In cultures existing prior to, or unaffected by, our current conception of empiric and propositional logic-based reasoning, would you say there was no distinction between rational and irrational thinking, or reasonableness and unreasonableness? — Janus
Previous cultures may have held what we would call superstitions as foundational premises upon which to reason and arrive at the "inferences to the best explanations" they were able to derive. — Janus
Just a final question to consider. In cultures existing prior to, or unaffected by, our current conception of empiric and propositional logic-based reasoning, would you say there was no distinction between rational and irrational thinking, or reasonableness and unreasonableness? — Janus
If rationality is using knowledge to achieve goals, then probably. — Tom Storm
I define it as the use of knowledge to attain a goal, where “knowledge,” according to the standard philosopher’s definition, is “justified true belief.” — Tom Storm
I am happy with Pinker's definition but I recognize its problems. Is not part of the issue that some of us see reason as superior pathway to truth (small 't') - and let's not get onto that one either. — Tom Storm
[...] we never did define what "rational" means back at the beginning. For me, it means a systematic search for knowledge and understanding following a formal system such as logic, the rules of which are specified in advance. — T Clark
First off, as a matter of opinion, we disagree on what the term rational ought to refer to. I for one believe it should be roughly described as “the ability to discern and apply reasons (like causes and motives) and comparisons (with ratios as one example among humans) for the sake of optimally fulfilling goals, be these needs (like physical sustenance so as to maintain physical health) or desires (with improved eudemonia as one example sometimes spoken of by philosophers)”./quote]
It's not a question of what "rational" ought to refer to, it's what it actually does refer to. It doesn't mean just good, effective thinking, at least not in a philosophical context. It has a specific meaning and it's not the one you've given above. It's closer to the one that I've given, although we could argue the specifics.
— javra
If the cultures in which (your sense of) rationality prevails happen to callously and obliviously bring about the steady obliteration of the inhabitable planet - and, via rational inference, of themselves as a peoples in the process - while those cultures devoid of rationality (as you've defined it) do no such thing, what’s one to make of rationality’s value? — javra
I think we're coming up against the problem that we never did define what "rational" means back at the beginning. — T Clark
I don't think it is easy to have a discussion like this without recognising that reason belongs to a web of interrelated ideas and values and any deep discussion will lead us irrevocably to matters of truth and reality. — Tom Storm
As I noted in my response to javra, above, I don't think rationality is really capable of dealing with "a web of interrelated ideas and values." — T Clark
Again, it's not my sense of what it means, [the description of "rationality" which T Clark previously posted is] what it actually does mean. — T Clark
They are hypotheses to be worked out in practice, and to be rejected, corrected and expanded as they fail or succeed in giving our present experience the guidance it requires.... — Pantagruel
"Reason" as a faculty separate from experience, introducing us to a superior region of universal truths begins now to strike us as remote, uninteresting and unimportant. — Pantagruel
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.