5 posts tagged “rationality”

Rationality vs. Emotions

Jun 19, 2009
1 comment

The misunderstanding of passion and reason, as if the latter existed as an entity by itself, and not rather as a state of the relations between different passions and desires...

-Nietzsche, Will to Power

In philosophy, rationality and the emotions have always been described as opposing things. One can even extend this opposition to religion, where the emotions are seen as evil and diabolical, preventing one from doing what God wants one to do (the "rational" thing). I have never really thought about this battle between rationality and the emotions before. But once I did, I noticed that I've fallen into the same mentality: rationality vs. the emotions.

Through my reading and my discussions with other people, I've learned that the typical view of rationality is that it is objective (indifferent), dispassionate (emotionless), and founded upon logical and sound arguments. This view sees the emotions as irrational. Without really "choosing" to subscribe to this type of thought, I found myself (still do, at least to some extent) advocating this type of thought. My mom (women in general? Hehe) is extremely emotional, in part because of her health and the medicine that she takes. When she sees a problem, she uses her emotions to find a solution. When she comes to me with her problems, I basically tell her that she needs to calm down and look at the situation from an objective (as if this was possible) and logical (rational) perspective. Usually, I figure out a solution for her and everything is cool.

But now, after noticing this battle between rationality and the emotions, I can't help but feel that the emotions should play some factor in making a decision. After all, the emotions are funademantls to us as human beings. (What would life be without emotion?) To some extent, perhaps the emotions provide us with a rationality from which we base our decisions on. There is a sense in which the emotions can prevent us from thinking clearly and believing in things that we probably shouldn't. But there is also a sense in which the emotions help us lead passionate lives and make the right choices. If so, it would seem that the emotions are the most important thing to understand, not rationality. Because if you understand the former, you'll understand the latter.

Objectivism: Values

Dec 2, 2008
5 comments

Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or a nonvalue.

-Ayn Rand

Objectivism states that the rational principle of conduct is to "always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lessor one."

Now I have a few questions:

(1) How are "values" created? Are they created by the individual or created for the individual? In accordance with Rand's objectivity theory of values, it seems that these values are created for the individual by evaluating the objective facts of reality. The individual simply has to discover them. But there is a subjective component to the value discovery process it seems: "Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests." But isn't this where "whims" come in? And, if I recall correctly, whims are irrational.
(2) How do we measure our values? In other words, how can one asses whether a value is greater or lessor than another value?
(3) Can the "value" of a value change over the course of time or is it static?

The Rational Man

Aug 17, 2008
1 comment

The rational man seeks the truth gropingly, he knows that his reasoning is only probable, that other considerations will arise to make it doubtful; ... he is 'open,' he may even appear hesitant. But there are people who are attracted by the durability of stone. They want to be massive and impenetrable, they do not want to change: where would change lead them? This is an original fear of oneself and a fear of truth. And what frightens them is not the content of truth which they do not even suspect, but the very form of the true that thing of indefinite approximation. . . . They want

to exist all at once and right away. They do not want acquired opinions, they want them to be innate; since they are afraid of reasoning, they want to adopt a mode of life in which reasoning and research play but a subordinate role, in which one never seeks but that which one has already found. . . . Only passion can produce this. Nothing but a strong emotional bias can give instant certitude, it alone can hold reasoning within limits, it alone can remain impervious

to experience. ... If out of courtesy he consents momentarily to defend his point of view, he lends himself without giving

himself; he simply tries to project his intuitive certainty onto the field of speech. ... If you insist too much they close up, they point out with one superb word that the time to argue has passed. . . .This man is afraid of any kind of solitude. ...

-Jean-Paul Sartre

Rational Religion, Part 2

Mar 16, 2008
3 comments

To clarify, you talked about it in your previous post...but it still feels incomplete. Is it just the absence of a supreme being that makes a religion rational? Is the tradition rational? Is it a matter of perspective? *Can* the big three Western religions be rational? Or is it just limited to Eastern religions? What sort of redefinition of the term religion is necessary for it to be rational?

-lightandstorm

In my Rational Religion post, I stated that I think religion can be rational but that this "religion" is completely different from traditional religion as we currently know it. Lightandstorm asked for some clarification, so here it goes.

The absence of a supreme being in a religion doesn't necessarily mean said religion will be considered rational. For example, hypothetically speaking, one could still believe in an after-life without believing in a supreme being. Not believing in a supreme being is rational, but the notion of an after-life isn't rational. But if the belief in a supreme being is dismissed, then everything else that is irrational will most likely be dismissed, because everything revolves around a supreme being. In essence, the previous religious tradition will be seen as irrational.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective whether or not one thinks religion can go from being irrational to rational. Consider the term "God." God, in the irrational, traditional religious sense, is a supernatural being. This definition of God is irrational, for numerous reasons, but mainly because there is no evidence to justify a belief in God. But if we redefine what we mean by "God," then it is possible to make "God" rational. This "God" would no longer be a supernatural being. Instead, God, using the the mystic's definition, would be this ultimate reality/pure being. I am still a novice when it comes to mysticism, but *this* notion of God seems to be rational. This "ultimate reality/pure being" definition may seen odd to the atheist, but I swear the issue is simply semantics. This God represents the ultimate reality that we are but a single part of this universe; we are not superior to this universe; we are a part of it and in it. In this case, "God" is all around. This God also represents the pure being that we will never be. By pure being, I mean the most perfect and moral being you could think of; in essence, the person you wish to be but will never succeed in being. This definition of God is rational. The spiritual language may bother non-believers, but look past the language and look at the concepts, and you will see everything is rational. Now, I think the mystic's God can be described as the above, but I'm sure there is more to this notion of God. Even if this isn't their notion of God, it could be my notion of God. Why not call the person I aim to be but never will fully become, God? What is irrational about this? Why even use the term? Well, you don't have to, but I like using it. This "God" represents something that is out of my reach and I am familiar with this language. Also, by using this definiton of God, I am able to communicate with religious in a more respectable manner. Instead of saying, "Uh, you are an idiot because you believe in God. God doesn't exist. You are weak," I can say something like, "God is very much alive in you. But you should not externalize this God. Instead, interalize him." Their God is irrational, but my "God" is rational. Which notion of God would you want to them use?

By redefining, God, Jesus, Muhammad, and irrational religious concepts, the three monotheistic can most definitely become rational. But, I would say that right now the three monotheistics religions are utterly irrational, and that Eastern traditions are very rational, yet not fully rational.

For a term to go from being irrational to rational, I think one essential thing must happen: the term must be redefined to describe our natural reality, not some supernatural reality. Consider Jesus as the Son of God. The traditional definition of Jesus is somewhat threefold: (1) Jesus was fully man and fully God, (2) Jesus died and resurrected, and (3) Jesus died for our sins. There is probably more to Jesus than this, but let's just focus on this. So what is irrational about this Jesus? Well, God doesn't exist, so he couldn't have been God; it is impossible to die and then be resurrected; and since God doesn't exist, the Genesis account is bogus and so is the concept of sin. Clearly, this definition of Jesus is supernatural, and therefore irrational. But, if we define Jesus as a moral human being who's goal was to teach people how to live *this* life, then he is very rational. Of course, Jesus' message has been distorted to nothing but supernatural nonsense, but it is possible to obtain his real message.

Rational Religion

Mar 14, 2008
15 comments

A buddy of mine is a deist/agnostic/atheist (I'm not quite sure how to label him. Damn labels!). Recently he told me that he has been attending church and a bible study. To me, my buddy is pretty rational: I'm pretty sure he sees the flaws in dogma and blind faith. By attending church and bible study, I think (I could be wrong) that he is attempting to truly rationalize religion. I agree with such an attempt.

I believe that religion can be rational--of course, this "religion" would be drastically different from traditional religion. In order to make religion rational, the notion of God, dogma, and blind faith must be discarded. You may be asking, "Well, then what is the point of religion?" Well, according to my buddy, and I agree with him, the point of religion is simply to become a better person. It should be noted that religion can be used for dangerous and terrorizing things. Religion is not a perfect institution by any means. Furthermore, one does not have to practice religion in order to become a better person. I think one can simply be spiritual--that is, aiming to be good--with no religion at all and still become a better person. Nevertheless, rational religion can aid in this process of trying to be a better person. But, fundamentally, I think all religions, whether irrational or rational, aim at becoming a better person. Of course, what is meant by becoming a better person may or may not be subjective, and religion may have other purposes.

Like I said above, in order for religion to be rational, the notion of God, dogma, and blind faith, must all be left behind. Practicing religion shouldn't be about being "good" in the eyes of God, for who knows what is "good" in the eyes of God? The 10 commandments? Islamic Law? Maybe, but ultimately what is "good" in the eyes of God is left to interpretation, and we all know how dogmatic and corrupt things can get when left to interpretation. Additionally, one shouldn't be practicing religion for the sake of eternal life in heaven or in fear of going to hell.

Practicing religion should be concerned with this life for the right reasons. You should want to become a better person because you see that being a bad person accomplishes nothing. You should want to help people because you want to help people, not because God told you to do so. You should want to help get rid of injustice because injustice only brings about suffering. You should want to be moral, not because God told you to be, but because being moral helps humanity and brings happiness to others.

One of my favorite songs (Meant to Live by Switchfoot) includes the following lyrics: "We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves? Somewhere we live inside." Purpose, truth, life, morals, one's self, meaning, everything, lives inside of us, not outside of us. It seems to me that most of us have lost ourselves by externalizing that which we should be internalizing.