Personally, I enjoy the changeability of the stories. If I were to tell "my story" a couple of times over a period of time, the story would be different each time. Much like Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy doesn't shy away from containing factually wrong or at least wildly inaccurate information, stories don't care for any pursuit of truth. They are free to contain any absurdities.

I'm wondering what exactly about stories that captivate us all? What is the story about stories (pun intended)? — Purple Pond

There's something about both the process and the conclusion of the story that makes it interesting.

Government sacks Roger Scruton after remarks about Soros and Islamophobia — jamalrob

Do governments sack their housing advisers because of them being [something]-phobic? Of course not. They sack them because what they uttered makes them look bad in the eyes of someone else who holds power whatever needs to be held power over. As much as discussing validity of his claims can be interesting, it is useless when it comes to politics.

Too context dependent. Try making a difficult moral choice with a headache. More seriously, I think that the context will shape the decision more than this empty theoretising. I don't believe that humans, at large, make their "moral" decisions based on an intellectualised system of ethics. Such decisions are much more intuitive.

What do you mean by "authentic self"? I find this concept interesting. — Wallows

A self that is not engaged in playing any role. For example, I may chose to get a certain job for financial reasons, but me identifying with that role would not be my authentic self. Me identifying with my job title would be superficial at best. The authentic self is the self that realises its own potential. Again, to bring in some Gestalt from Perls, playing a societal role is something we do for practical purposes of our survival and functioning within a society. The authentic self may not necessarily be connected with that. It's difficult to define the authentic self clearly, in my opinion. The ones who really attained it may have been called sages in various traditions. So, in order to be "the sage", one has to become him. It's a developmental thing, while identifying as this or that role in society is just a choice of comfort.

Perhaps one as close as possible to a Buddhist one, what do you think about it? — Wallows

Well, getting one with the authentic self (whatever that means in the end). The idea of not identifying with one of the roles we play in our society, but actually becoming that which is our own potential. Again, Gestalt and some Jungian ideas can be incorporated here.

Well, if one were to actually believe in the notion that gratifying wants and needs would produce lasting happiness, then I suppose that would be a rationale, though not rational...

I say that it's not rational because it's an endless marathon run that is the attainment of happiness, and is most likely not a result of direct behavior; but, rather indirectly. — Wallows

What kind of behaviour is rational to you then? Or rather, what kind of lifestyle.

Well, there is a typical tendency to place a great deal of emphasis on the gratification of wants and needs as resulting in happiness. This is a distorted view, which I don't believe in at least, though. — Wallows

Then is it still rational, to act in a way that's based on a distorted view of reality?

Going to Las Vegas to have fun might be a good example. If one were relatively poor, then what's the point? — Wallows

Well, why is having fun the right rational point? What if it's done on a whim while one is rich?

How about Wittgenstein, or Schopenhauer? — Wallows

Not well read in either of them, regrettably. My therapeutic examples would be Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and Sartre's short stories. There's something refreshing about absurdism. Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology is oddly comforting, too.

Yes, it is puzzling. I suggest the best option is to always listen to what is rational? — Wallows

Best for what? Could you give an example of rational vs. emotional?

Marcus Aurelius was very concerned with treating philosophy as an act of self-therapy. — Wallows

I do use some of the philosophy for therapeutic purposes, but for the life of me, I cannot get into Stoics. Some of what Seneca's writings had comforting effect on me, but I couldn't identify with the Stoics past certain passages.

I contest that it is never rational to act on emotions in an uninhibited and without reflexivity. — Wallows

Well, in the example of the brother, the rational calculation could have preceded the acting in an emotional state. I get tangled here, though. Getting back to how rational and emotional are not two strictly divided parts, even the emotionally uninhibited behaviour contains some rationality. Why is it never rational to you?

So, is it ideation itself to assert that some state of affairs will lead to complete bliss and nirvana? — Wallows

Maybe. The circumstances don't have to be ideal, but there are elements that can contribute to deviating person from that equilibrium, such as modern obsession with jobs and careers, approaches to relationships, and health related issues.

But, he's there talking with you. Isn't that enough? — Wallows

Maybe it is, maybe it is not. However, if it is preferable for me to be emotional and it brings benefits to both me and my brother, it is reasonable for me to be emotional.

Why do people stray away from some safe equilibrium or state of affairs and risk disturbing themselves? — Wallows

I would argue that most people are nowhere near the safe equilibrium. There are disturbances of one sort or another, and achieving equilibrium isn't that simple since the self-regulation process requires continuous awareness, at least as far as Perl's Gestalt is concerned.

Can you provide an example? — Wallows

Let's say my brother is going through difficult times, but he hates me just sitting there and listening to him while making only practical suggestions. He wants me to show some emotions and empathy towards him and his situation. So, for the benefit of my brother, and for my own sake to emotionally connect with my brother, it is reasonable for me to be emotional with him.

Interesting. So, you would assert that there is some metalogical component to the reasoning process that gives rise to some reciprocal relationship between the emotions and reason? — Wallows

This makes me think of Perl's Gestalt, where he mentions that awareness can help facilitate the self-regulation of emotions. Probably similar to laying down with a flu and letting it being worked out by the body itself. Or so his talk went. I wouldn't call the relationship reciprocal, personally. Since they work together, one cannot be imagined without the other, which makes it difficult to talk about it as well.

Well, yet here we are talking about them in some dichotomistic fashion? Is it language that is confusing us here or what? — Wallows

Probably. Sometimes being more reasonable means being more emotional.

Meaning, that reasoning is quite hopeless in the face of such feelings. Yet, is it? — Wallows

I would guess reasoning serves the purpose of getting to the right end scenario. It is the part that can attempt to calculate the way through to the desirable situation. So, despite emotional difficulties, reasoning can be used to not loose sight of the bigger picture.

There isn't any way to reason with it, because it is inherently emotional. — Wallows

I don't think we are strictly divided into emotional and rational. Both need to coexist and cooperate in an organic way. In other words, it's not about turning on the reasoning side and or the emotional side. In that sense, "emotional reasoning" may make sense, for all I know. Anyway, my two cents.

Mostly as an antidote to ideology. It's relieving to know you don't have to trust anyone, even if they appear convincing.