Rationality

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Assume that a sound argument is "rational", and anything else is "irrational".

Is rational thought necessarily superior to irrational thought? For example, there are some cases where acknowledging rational thought could be detrimental, but obviously irrational thought has its pitfalls.

How about "rationally irrational" thoughts, those that are irrational for a specific purpose?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Can you provide some examples of rational and irrational thought?

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

I would rather keep it abstract for now in order not to taint the responses.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

I suppose irrational thought could promote more 'out of the box' thinking or lead to considering other aspects or tangents...

Debating someone irrational can lead to getting to the base assumptions, in the search trying to figure out where their opinion is coming from.

 

[Words]

Assume that a sound argument is "rational", and anything else is "irrational".

A sound argument as oppose to a "strong" argument? So inductive logic is within "irrational"?

Is rational thought necessarily superior to irrational thought? For example, there are some cases where acknowledging rational thought could be detrimental, but obviously irrational thought has its pitfalls.

Following my question the above, irrational thinking would involve creating best-guess solutions, dealing with a problem in a limitedly known and complicated environment and I think pattern-searching would also be a part of irrationality. If this is not rational, then it is at least practical, especially in a temporal setting.

If induction is also rational then sure. In an environment with so many variables, Accidents sometimes produce the good stuff. (Mutation could be a part of that)

How about "rationally irrational" thoughts, those that are irrational for a specific purpose?

I think the term "rationally" in that idea would liken an "absolute value" operation.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

A sound argument as oppose to a "strong" argument? So inductive logic is within "irrational"?

Either sound or strong would work. I forgot to mention the latter.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Okay, since no one else has responded yet, can we deem feelings irrational?

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Assume that a sound argument is "rational", and anything else is "irrational".

Is rational thought necessarily superior to irrational thought? For example, there are some cases where acknowledging rational thought could be detrimental, but obviously irrational thought has its pitfalls.

How about "rationally irrational" thoughts, those that are irrational for a specific purpose?

It all depends on how it affects your progress. You say rational thought could be "detrimental" but whether or not something is detrimental depends on where you want to end up.

Are we talking about rationality in general or rational decisions? Because you can have a rational thought process that ends in an irrational decision. If your basis for trying to solve a problem is "Joe feels bad. I want to make him happy." Then you can come to a rational conclusion to do something that makes him happy, but the basis for your action is feeling, and feelings=irrational. But following that same situation, if you are purely rational then you might decide "Joe feels bad. His happiness has no effect on me, I will do nothing to make him feel better Or worse." That would be pure rationality because you disregard emotion completely.

So I realize I have not argued for or against either yet and I would have to say that rationality in thought is always better than irrational thought, but basing your thought on pure rationality isn't necessarily the best thing. It really does all depend on what your goal is. So deciding which is detrimental and which isn't depends on what the resolution you want is.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Are we talking about rationality in general or rational decisions? Because you can have a rational thought process that ends in an irrational decision. If your basis for trying to solve a problem is "Joe feels bad. I want to make him happy." Then you can come to a rational conclusion to do something that makes him happy, but the basis for your action is feeling, and feelings=irrational. But following that same situation, if you are purely rational then you might decide "Joe feels bad. His happiness has no effect on me, I will do nothing to make him feel better Or worse." That would be pure rationality because you disregard emotion completely.

I was talking about rational reasoning in general. The premises do not need to be based on merely fact however, but can also be subjective if they are what one undoubtedly believes.

In your example above, both would be rational decisions. It depends on whether you would want to make Joe happy, or would rather be apathetic toward him.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Why are the two meanings of rationality (reason vs self-interest) used interchangeably?

 

[Black Rose]

I was talking about rational reasoning in general. The premises do not need to be based on merely fact however, but can also be subjective if they are what one undoubtedly believes.

In your example above, both would be rational decisions. It depends on whether you would want to make Joe happy, or would rather be apathetic toward him.

"It depends on whether you would want to"

Without emotion no decision can ever be made but to define emotion as irrational means all decisions are irrational.

The most rational thing to do is nothing because nothing matters and things only matter with emotion.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Why are the two meanings of rationality (reason vs self-interest) used interchangeably?

I didn't mean they were the same, but just that for the purpose of making a decision, a subjective premise is often necessary.

 

[Oblivious]

Feelings can be a factor in rational calculations. Dismissal of emotions as a factor in rational thought is in itself irrational, or at least, impractical.

Feelings are not to be dismissed. You have to come to terms with them one way or another.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Without emotion no decision can ever be made but to define emotion as irrational means all decisions are irrational.

A decision could eventually be made, but it would take much longer. Emotions help greatly in the decision-making process (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262603002859).

Feelings can be a factor in rational calculations. Dismissal of emotions as a factor in rational thought is in itself irrational, or at least, impractical.

I agree.

 

[Jah]

Rational, from the word ratio, something that is quantitatively in relation to something else, like real numbers, etc.

Irrational is thereby the lack of ratio,


Think of it like steps,
rational would be steps of equal length. One follows the Other.

irrational would be seven mile boots, jumping randomly around.
One does not follow the other.


so where rational leaves you with a clear path, a coherent history of logical steps.
The irrational will leave you with a broken path, without coherence; in other words, the conclusions you arrive at through irrationality will not be logically connected to the starting point.

(Leaps of faith ?)



As an image, draw two trees,
start at the stem, and on one, draw coherent lines, on the other, place random lines around the paper.

The branches here symbolize ideas, concepts.
And the Stem of the tree is what is known. (loosely defined, but you get the picture)


If you have to make leaps across nothing to get to an idea, this means you cannot prove it, (This does not mean it is not true, you might stumble onto some truth without basing it on previous knowledge, but until there is a rational explanation, your idea may never actually flourish and bear fruit. so to speak)

 

[Reluctantly]

Okay, since no one else has responded yet, can we deem feelings irrational?

I suppose you could deem anything and everything irrational. Perhaps that's why you have the choice.