You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

The Roe vs. Wade decision had 36 sheets of paper. The Dobbs decision had 213.

Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person. — universeness

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. If you started out with 100 individual, independent representatives, they would start to make coalitions around specific issues. Those coalitions would grow, consolidate, and become institutionalized. Then they'd be political parties. I think it's inevitable, and for good reason. As I said, when a jurisdiction gets to a certain size, it is ungovernable as a direct democracy.

Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment? — universeness

I am not unbiased, but I think the reason things are so troubled in the US is simple. Starting in about 1970, the Republican Party decided winning elections was more important than governing the country.

I think you will find that philosophers have decided it *is* philosophy in the past couple of decades. — mcdoodle

And I've decided that it isn't. Not that it matters what they or I have decided.

What if "that stuff" that's being kept from them is about people who are unlike them in some way? (Yes, if Billy-Bob says he's really a girl, he's a girl. It's okay to stop feeling guilty because you were attracted to him. Yes, the people in China are also human beings, and they didn't invent the Covid virus. ) Or factual history? (No, the Civil War was not stolen, the Confederacy lost; General Lee did not ride proudly into the glorious sunset and Jim Crow was not a very good policy...) — Vera Mont

I wouldn't be unhappy as a parent if the elementary grades focused on basics without a lot of controversial issues being discussed. Younger children need to see the physical and human worlds as coherent and enduring and that adults have some sort of consensus understanding of how things work. Of course it's more complicated than that, but I don't see any harm in waiting till middle school to start getting into that.

So, in history, tell the story, but include slavery and how the American Indians were treated. In science, tell the story, but for controversial issues like evolution or the age of the universe, tread lightly in elementary schools in areas where this will cause problems. In English class, don't teach "Huckleberry Finn." There are plenty of other good books until kids get older. In health, teach fundamentals of how bodies work including issues with sex at an age-appropriate level. Third graders don't need to know about issues of sexual politics and controversy.

I went through the American public school system, including three years in high school in central Virginia near the North Carolina border. And look how well I turned out.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system. — universeness

Politics is always ugly and I think you'll always get bad people grasping for power. Here in New England many municipalities have direct democracy - town meetings where either all adult residents or elected local representatives vote. It works reasonably well for small towns, but breaks down the larger the group gets. I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. As badly as it sometimes seems to be working, I can't think of a better mechanism than some sort of party system.

As for the US midterm election, some are saying this will be the beginning of the end of the 30+ year Republican rampage against governance. I hope that's true.

Experimental philosophy (X-Phi) is a sub-field of philosophy where experimental data about philosophy is collected. This is usually in the form of surveys to test folk intuition about philosophical concepts. — invizzy

What you describe is not experimental philosophy, it is science - psychology or maybe sociology. I think when science broke off from philosophy, it took all the empirical stuff with it. Maybe not, but I can't think of anything that would qualify.

There are a lot of books out there, and a limited amount of library shelf space. So decisions have to be made about what to put in and what to leave out. Deciding no to include a book because a significant number of people in the community find it offensive is not necessarily unreasonable. Keeping books that include sexual content, violence, and difficult social issues out of elementary school libraries is also not necessarily unreasonable. I wouldn't have wanted my children, all adults now, to have to deal with that stuff. beyond what they need to get along with others.

Which brings us, as all things do for me, to the Tao. As Lao Tzu wrote, "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." He also wrote "Naming is the beginning of all particular things." The multiplicity of things, i.e. the world we see and interact with, is brought into being by naming, i.e. putting it into words.

So, you can't talk about the Tao because if you do, you turn it into something else. More generally, if you talk about anything you turn it into something different. For me, ineffable means that; if you put it into words, something valuable, fundamental, perhaps even sacred, is lost.

Another of my (presumptively wise) beliefs is that where communication with others is concerned, art is the only means by which we may describe what we call the ineffable, however uncertainly. That would include poetry, but the use of words in poetry for that purpose is to imply, to suggest, to evoke. — Ciceronianus

This makes sense to me. Poetry doesn't explain, it paints pictures.

Behaviourism had a model based on instincts learned by stimuli responses. It was undermined by studies of rat behaviour which suggested they had mental maps as they performed short cuts in mazes — Andrew4Handel

Yes, behaviorism is mostly discredited at this point. When I was a psych major back in the 1970s, I did do some rat conditioning experiments.

Science it self relies on symbols. So that is a criticism of the naturalistic, physicalist, materialist world view. — Andrew4Handel

I don't think that's necessarily true.

Isn't the environment the outside force motivating animals?

I tend to view animals as more driven by outside forces than us. — Andrew4Handel

Isn't that view in conflict with the understanding that animals act more on instinct than humans do? Maybe not. Maybe we could say that animals act more on instinct, so they have less choice, therefore are more reactive to outside forces.

I guess I think humans are more able to say "no" to impulses or to delay gratification than animals, but we all act in response to outside forces. We are getting to, probably have gone beyond, my level of knowledge in this area.

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

I think you're right.

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.

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.

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

Free on Amazon.

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."

Sure; never said they were. Note also, that this idea of 'exceptional' will itself consist of a spectrum of possibilities, my idea of exceptional might be very different from yours, or Andrew's. — Tom Storm

Sure. I was talking to A4H more than to you. It's nice here in the middle. I always think of lines from Carl Dennis' poem "Aunt Celia 1961," which I've posted on the forum before.

As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.

You're making assumptions that the best you can be has to be banal. Some people make it exceptional. — Tom Storm

Banal and exceptional are not the only two choices. I aim at satisfying. Simplifying your desires is easier to achieve than increasing your exceptionality. Some of us weren't meant for greatness. For us, pretty good is good enough.

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing? — Andrew4Handel

When I was working, I had to make decisions all the time. Most of them were small with limited consequences, but some were important. As I noted before, for most of them, even some of the more important ones, it didn't really matter what decision I made as long as I made it and then took responsibility for the results. It's funny, but since I've retired I sometimes find myself spending five minutes deciding what sandwich to get at the deli. They guys behind the counter laugh at me. I go in there a lot.

Studies have shown there is a strong emotional component to decision making. Some people with traumatic damage to a part of the brain with a role in emotion are no longer able to make even very simple decisions. Things like whether or not to put their clothes on or to eat.

The problem is isolating what would be instinct. Instinct to me, seems like a drive you cannot but help. So an instinct to eat perhaps, go to the bathroom, prefer that which is physically pleasurable or raises levels of oxyctocin, dopamine, and serotonin. However, those are so broad to not really be helpful to consider how they are motivating. For example, reading a book might be pleasurable, but to say that the pleasure of reading the book is instinct, is a bit more than a stretch as far as I'm concerned. — schopenhauer1

I can't go too deep on this. I don't know enough. Stephen Pinker is talking about language. He says there is a drive for children to learn it. It's not a mechanical robotic drive. It just feels right. Think about a sex drive. That also feels right. I assume it's an instinct. There are lots of things in my life like that. Certain things just feel like the right thing to do. I don't think all of them are instincts, but I don't think those that are feel different than my desire to go outside on a nice day. When I eat something, it's important to me what bowl and silverware I use. It feels right, good, to hold them in my hand. I really have no idea where that came from. We do things that feel like the right thing to do. They're what we want to do. And sometimes we don't do them because we rationally decide it is not a good time.

Conformity is certainly an easier life. — Andrew4Handel

Following your heart is not conformity. For many people, me included, it is hard to hear what their heart is saying. For me, the search for awareness is the search to hear the voice inside me.

How would you describe a rational or reasonable action? — Andrew4Handel

I'm with @Tom Storm - We do the best we can. I've read that all humans are related to one woman who lived about 200,000 years ago. Think about that. Every decision she made affected the entire human race from then till now. Every day, I'm sure she just got up in the morning, cooked breakfast, kissed her mate before he went off to hunt dinosaurs, sent the kids out to play in the tar pits, and got down to work pounding animal skins.

It did happen Hitler existed and cause the deaths of Millions and massive destruction in Europe. Hitler was kept alive as a child by interventions. — Andrew4Handel

If Hitler had been killed as a child, I never would have been born. The same is true for everyone on the forum. Most, maybe all, the people in the world. Also, who knows what would have happened if not for World War II? Technological advancements which took resulted from the war would have taken longer. I have read that, if not for WWII, there would eventually have been a war between European countries and the Soviet Union. I don't know if that's true.

For instance, a guy decides to do X for the good of all humanity; having so done, a sociopath gets pissed and kills off all of the guy’s family. Here, the intended outcome is “improved benefit to all of humanity” and the actual outcome is “the murder of all of one’s family”. Judging by the consequences of the choice alone, this choice was therefore wrong/bad/malevolent … and the person ought not have so chosen.

One could argue along the lines of “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Here, more explicitly, the intentions intending to do good don’t take into account all the practical repercussions/consequences of so intending... — javra

Some thoughts.

Foreseeability- If I buy a loaf of whole wheat bread and that somehow starts a chain of events that leads to World War III, it would be silly to hold me responsible. More realistically, if I am driving down the street at the speed limit and a child jumps out, causing me to swerve, causing the car to run into a tree, the event was not foreseeable. But, if I got drunk, drove fast, and ran into a tree I would be responsible, because accidents are a known result of driving drunk. So - the extent to which the event is reasonably foreseeable is relevant.

Scope and scale - My responsibility is different for acts that will affect only myself and those that will affect larger groups and areas, e.g. "all humanity." The larger the scope and scale of my behavior, the more likely there are to be unforeseen consequences and the worse those consequences are likely to be. I am responsible for understanding that and taking it into account.

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.

Those baby studies have a problematic paradigm.

On what grounds are the babies evaluations being considered moral? You have to prove a behaviour is good or moral not the baby and the baby is doing things we think are good which could be anything we already have a preference for.

Wynn also found babies seemed to exhibit bias — Andrew4Handel

Are you basing this on the video I linked or another source? The video made it clear. The types of judgements the babies were making were not not necessarily fair or positive. They didn't necessarily match what we would think of as good moral judgement. Moral judgement doesn't just mean doing what is right. It also means judgement of others behavior and establishing some sort of moral standards. Prejudice is a good example of a moral judgement we don't like.

Here the babies choice overlooks "bad" behaviour based on shared preferences. — Andrew4Handel

As I said, moral judgements that aren't consistent with what we consider good are still moral judgements.

I was badly bullied in school as a child and if humans are innately moral I would like an explanation for how that happened? You need to explain the array of antisocial behaviour humans exhibit in light of supposed inherent moral knowledge. — Andrew4Handel

Saying that humans may have an innate moral sense is not the same as saying they are innately good. As shown in Wynn's studies, I think it shows we are innately judgmental.

My main dilemma on this thread though is not morality per se but choosing out of a seeming infinity of choices and with modern technology at our finger types such of the masses of information and behaviours on the internet we have even more choice daily. None of these choices may turn out to be profound but the seem to be there free will permitting yet our brain somehow copes at least to some extent. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, there is truth in what you've written. I would just say that for most decisions, it doesn't really matter what you decide, as long as any possible negative consequences are minor. Save your stomach aches for decisions that really matter and do what you can to recognize which ones really do and which ones don't. I have a default setting - if I don't have strong feelings, I decide no. I never get the extras - extended warrantees, extra buttons on the washing machine, a moon roof. When I vote on initiative petitions or referenda, if I don't really understand the possible consequences of the law and agree they are worthwhile, I don't vote on it at all. You have the power to limit the number of choices you have to make.

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.

Though I do still disagree about Homo Sapiens being just another animal. — ChatteringMonkey

I didn't say we are. Anyway, I think you and I are in general agreement.

I don't think what I'm saying is that outlandish, but you know, I'm not a professional so I very well could be somewhat off the mark. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think it's outlandish, but I provided specific sources for my opinions. The extent to which human behavior is innate has been argued on the forum before. There is scientific evidence on both sides. No one argues that cultural influences don't have a big role to play. If your positions weren't expressed so definitively I wouldn't might not have responded so vigorously.

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

Agreed.

It would make sense, given what we know I think — ChatteringMonkey

Do you have a source for your understanding?

Babies are dependent on (M)others, and therefore make connections and loyalties very quickly, — unenlightened

I stole this from one of my posts in an earlier discussion:

The early emergence of the evaluation of social actions—present already by 3 months of age—suggests that this capacity cannot result entirely from experi­ence in particular cultural environments or exposure to specific linguistic practices, and it suggests that there are innate bases that ground some components of our moral cognition. — Karen Wynn

I see this as a very moderate expression of an argument for a genetic component to moral behavior. She doesn't make any definitive statement. She says her results suggest a genetic component. She says "...there are innate bases that ground some components of our moral cognition." That doesn't seem like any great leap to take from her studies. You, on the other hand, seem to reject even that moderate claim out of hand. You point out some hypothetical reasons why it might not be true, but don't provide any substantive refutation. I find that an unconvincing argument.

I've linked to this video many times on the forum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

I would say there is reason here to suggest a human preference/desire for rules, but not necessarily that any innate ‘rules for behaviour’ exist as such. — Possibility

I don't think it's necessarily a preference for rules as such as much as it is a natural tendency to judge others.

What this also means, is that because we evolved this set of abilities for cultural learning that is more flexible, we didn't need all these hard-wired traits and instincts anymore unlike other animals... and so we presumably eventually lost a lot of those traits, as tends to happen in evolution with traits that aren't useful anymore. — ChatteringMonkey

we lack all of these instinctive algorithmic behaviors. — ChatteringMonkey

It would be a good explanation, I guess, if it were true.

I am no expert on animal behaviour but it seems to me humans can never exist (spontaneously?)like an animal in the wild without language communities and complex learning. — Andrew4Handel

Homo Sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. They were genetically equivalent to people today. Do you think evolution didn't provide them with the ability to make decisions and act on those decisions? Do you think people 100,000 years ago couldn't act without application of rules, objectivity or teleology? I'm sure they didn't have existential crises or nihilistic feelings. The problems you've identified are overlays on basic human behavior associated, I guess, with modern civilization.

It is at the heart of some eastern philosophies and meditative practices that people can think and act spontaneously, e.g. Taoism. This from The Tao Te Ching, Verse 38, Ellen Marie Chen translation with some butchering from me:

When spontaneity [Tao] is lost, then there is virtue.
When virtue is lost, then there is humanity.
When humanity is lost, then there is righteousness.
When righteousness is lost, then there is propriety.
Propriety is the thin edge of loyalty and faithfulness,
And the beginning of disorder.

There are no innate rules for behaviour and any value judgements and ought's are completely fabricated. — Andrew4Handel

There are studies that show babies as young as three months old, long before they have language, are already judging other people's behavior and making value judgements. Karen Wynn, who conducted the studies, suggests this does show there are innate rules for behavior.

I feel that we are in a nihilistic position where we can't can justify any of our actions by reference to rules, objectivity or teleology.

For example it is not wrong for me to eat a chocolate bar and it is not wrong for me not to eat one. There are no innate rules for behaviour and any value judgements and ought's are completely fabricated. — Andrew4Handel

Animals know what to do to live without some outside force motivating them. People are animals. What we need to live, to make decisions and to act, is built in to us, some of it from birth and some of it developed later through education and socialization. Of course, people are also different from other animals, so I'm sure our motivations are more complicated. Some of it is fear, some more positive factors. I've tried to pay attention to my own motivation for the things I do. In my experience, rules and rational considerations are not my primary motivators.

Stephen Pinker in "The Language Instinct" makes the case that, to a large extent, language acquisition is an instinct - genetically mediated motivation which develops according to a developmental schedule. He quotes Darwin from "Descent of Man":

Human language is an instinctive tendency to acquire an art. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to be learned. It differs, however, widely from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; while no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write.

He also quotes William James from "What is an Instinct":

Nothing is commoner than the remark that Man differs from lower creatures by the almost total absence of instincts, and the assumption of their work in him by “reason.”...[But] the facts of the case are really tolerably plain! Man has a far greater variety of impulses than any lower animal; and any one of these impulses, taken in itself, is as “blind” as the lowest instinct can be; but, owing to man’s memory, power of reflection, and power of inference, they come each one to be felt by him, after he has once yielded to them and experienced their results, in connection with a foresight of those results…

…It is plain then that, no matter how well endowed an animal may originally be in the way of instincts, his resultant actions will be much modified if the instincts combine with experience, if in addition to impulses he have memories, associations, inferences, and expectations, on any considerable scale…

…there is no material antagonism between instinct and reason…

To me, this suggests that human behavior beyond just acquisition of language is motivated by instinct modified and expanded by learning and experience.

My take so far is that, as of yet, there isn't a settled philosophical definition of what "rational" means. Mine fully included. — javra

Agreed. As I noted, it's best if definitions are agreed on, or at least discussed, early in a thread.

It’s the job of the metaphysician to stand upon the practical foundation of scientific truth and spin a cognitive narrative of a cerebrally inhabitable world that imparts logical-conceptual coherence to physical things. — ucarr

You use a different definition of "metaphysics" than I, or many others, do. A confusion of definitions just about always happens when discussing this subject. For me, metaphysics is the foundation upon which science is built. I don't want to sidetrack your discussion, so I won't go any further.

I think you're right. Your definition of "rational" is a valid one.

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."