Kjetil Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Can it be rational to be a socialist if your decision is based on the full use of your rational capacity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 What is different about this question from the one you asked about different moralities. Yes, it can be rational, but certainly it'd be mistaken. That's different than evading once you discover later that there is nothing rational about socialist. Context of knowledge determines what is rational for you do, provided that you always do use the process of reason to come to conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovesLife Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Can it be rational to be a socialist if your decision is based on the full use of your rational capacity? Sure, it can be rational, but only if your foundation is not anchored in objective reality. Rationalists do this kind of thing all the time. Come up with some arbitrary claim, and then rationally derive a whole set of conclusions from it. The problem is that if the original claim is not anchored in objective reality, then everything you derive from it is wrong, even though it was rationally derived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Rationis Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Sure, it can be rational, but only if your foundation is not anchored in objective reality. Rationalists do this kind of thing all the time. Come up with some arbitrary claim, and then rationally derive a whole set of conclusions from it. The problem is that if the original claim is not anchored in objective reality, then everything you derive from it is wrong, even though it was rationally derived. This type of thinking is not "rational" in the usual Objectivist sense of the term. In certain contexts of knowledge, it can be rational to be a socialist. For example, imagine a man who lives in a feudal, mystic society and knows nothing about rational philosophy or politics. He somehow gets a copy of the works of Karl Marx and realizes that it is of a much higher caliber than the dogma he is taught at his church. Consequently, he is taken in by these arguments and becomes a Marxist. His behavior is rational up to this point. What is irrational is for him to evade the obvious problems that come with implementing these ideas (or attempting to explore their deeper implications, such as the absence of free will) and declare it a problem with reality rather than with his theory. So, essentially, it is not irrational for a man to be a socialist at some stage of his intellectual development so long as he continues to engage with reality, which, of course, will lead him out of socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamspirit Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) This type of thinking is not "rational" in the usual Objectivist sense of the term. In certain contexts of knowledge, it can be rational to be a socialist. For example, imagine a man who lives in a feudal, mystic society and knows nothing about rational philosophy or politics. He somehow gets a copy of the works of Karl Marx and realizes that it is of a much higher caliber than the dogma he is taught at his church. Consequently, he is taken in by these arguments and becomes a Marxist. His behavior is rational up to this point. What is irrational is for him to evade the obvious problems that come with implementing these ideas (or attempting to explore their deeper implications, such as the absence of free will) and declare it a problem with reality rather than with his theory. So, essentially, it is not irrational for a man to be a socialist at some stage of his intellectual development so long as he continues to engage with reality, which, of course, will lead him out of socialism. I would have to agree with this. I used to think that socialism was good, and the only way to maintain order in a society is to have strict control, simply because I went to school with a bunch of trailer trash baptist idiots that I didn't want to deal with, but over the years I began to see how wrong that was. I read all about Karl Marx and eugenics and was fascinated by it, I'm so disgusted remembering it. Edited August 27, 2011 by Dreamspirit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttime Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) This type of thinking is not "rational" in the usual Objectivist sense of the term. In certain contexts of knowledge, it can be rational to be a socialist. For example, imagine a man who lives in a feudal, mystic society and knows nothing about rational philosophy or politics. He somehow gets a copy of the works of Karl Marx and realizes that it is of a much higher caliber than the dogma he is taught at his church. Consequently, he is taken in by these arguments and becomes a Marxist. His behavior is rational up to this point. What is irrational is for him to evade the obvious problems that come with implementing these ideas (or attempting to explore their deeper implications, such as the absence of free will) and declare it a problem with reality rather than with his theory. So, essentially, it is not irrational for a man to be a socialist at some stage of his intellectual development so long as he continues to engage with reality, which, of course, will lead him out of socialism. I disagree with the validity of your example. It's not rational to "be taken in" by an argument just because it appears to be of a "higher caliber" than religious nonsense. That is basically emotionalism, if what you intended to say was that the man was greatly impressed by the arguments without understanding them. I do not think it is possible to be a true socialist who fully grasps the ideas involved while still being rational in that respect. In any case, I want to add that I agree with your assessment of the contextual nature of rationality. One can be rational even in holding a mistaken belief at times given a specific context. Edited August 27, 2011 by ttime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Can it be rational to be a socialist? Nope. Politics is an extension of Ethics. Socialism is rooted in altruism. Altruism is rooted in religion and blind acceptance. if your decision is based on the full use of your rational capacity You might be honestly mistaken about socialism being efficient, at least in a world that never experienced socialism before. Someone in the 19th century might make that honest mistake. But not even he could be honestly mistaken about socialism being moral. Unless he has accepted, unquestioningly and entirely without the use of his rational capacity, that altruism is the good. But then you can't say his decisions are based on the full use of his rational capacity, can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Rand herself admits that she could not have conceived of her view of humanity and of how it should be organized politically without the aid of the examples set in the early industrial revolution, where trade was (mostly) voluntary. Is she admitting then that before this time, she would have an irrational view of political philosophy? No, merely that the evidence for what we now know as the best socio-economic system was not available to those in the 17th century. Of course now, believing in the power of the state as or any forced together collective as the arbiter of political rule is as irrational as belief in God. Belief in god many moons ago might not have been unjustified. However, in the past 200 years our knowledge of nature has grown in leaps and bounds. An admittance into one's knowledge of God or of the valid power of the state in social organization shows a rather willful or malignant ignorance of the facts. Perhaps an individual in North Korea or the African jungle may not know the benefits of capitalism, but when one lives in a relatively free society, where the fruits of capitalism have come to bear, one can draw no reasonable conclusion about those who support socialist or any sort of totalitarian policy other than that person is malignantly ignorant at least in this aspect of his philosophy and likely in other aspects. Gramlich 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Weiss Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Socialism is rational and self-evident if one holds theft to be moral. If property itself is defined as theft, as it is in Marxism, then Marxism is rational. Since the premise is false, the conclusion is false, but entirely rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Socialism is rational and self-evident if one holds theft to be moral. If property itself is defined as theft, as it is in Marxism, then Marxism is rational. Since the premise is false, the conclusion is false, but entirely rational. Starting with false premises and reaching worthless conclusions is rational? Why? What is being accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Weiss Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 Starting with false premises and reaching worthless conclusions is rational? Why? What is being accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Weiss Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 One must always validate one's premises. Following a logical progression is necessary but insuffient in arriving at truth. That is one of the many problems with religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Glat Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Socialism is a flavor of collectivism, or a political system based on slavery and mysticism, or in a more abstract concept: it is a system based on force. Advocates of any collectivist system usually evade their fundamental contradictions which are specifically Existence = Identity. Consciousness = Identification. Therefore advocates reject the notion that Man has free will and is merely a collection of atoms, programmed by fate, god, or genes. Man doesn't have a mind, they contend, therefore Man cannot be held accountable for any of his behaviors. This means that Socialism's efforts to redistribute wealth equally, or to a degree more equally, is morally right because its not Johnny's fault that he isn't smart enough to be an astronaut and just as importantly, Maria the physicist, the one who works to understand and solve and create and produce did so automatically just like her genes/god/fate designed her to do, therefore she has no right to a larger paycheck than Johnny. Socialism is the political system of determinism, subjectivism, and anti-reason because it denies the Individual and claims his life, his ability, and his productive output belongs to everyone and anyone in society. Socialists deny Free Will, they deny the right to property, and they deny the right to life. It is absolutely, objectively irrational to contend that socialism is viable, that socialism is moral, and/or that socialism is rational. ttime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Following a logical progression is necessary but insuffient in arriving at truth. That is one of the many problems with religion. If logical progression is insufficient in arriving at truth, then what do you think constitutes a sufficient means? Jonny Glat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) If logical progression is insufficient in arriving at truth, then what do you think constitutes a sufficient means? Evidence and proof. The poster is just pointing out Rand's Razor (which you erased from your quotation.) Edited August 31, 2011 by 2046 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Evidence and proof. The poster is just pointing out Rand's Razor (which you erased from your quotation.) I didn't erase anything, to my knowledge, so I don't know what you're saying and I have no reason to trust your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.