Are Most People Rational?

JeffS · December 31, 2009, 4:48pm

This topic came up in another thread, but it has always lingered at the back of my mind: Do most people on this planet think and behave rationally? That is, do they base their decisions and actions primarily upon reality; do they think about the assertions of others before making up their own minds? Or, rather, do they go through life like zombies, following the actions and decisions of others?

I’m not talking about an Ayn Rand level of focus. I’m not asking if they are rational all the time, at all points in their lives, with every decision and every action. Just whether, on average, for a predominate amount of time, are they rational?

If they are, why do so many still cling to mystical ideas, why do so many gravitate toward socialism?

If they are not, then wouldn’t the rational course of action be to “get mine while the gettin’s to be got?” If the mob is a bunch of mystics, trying to take the unearned, and my rational highest value is my own life and my own happiness, wouldn’t the rational course of action be to not stand apart from those mystics, lest they see me as a heretic and kill me. Woudn’t it be rational to take as much as I can, regardless of who earned it? Wouldn’t it be rational to create nothing - to not work myself so hard just to have it taken?

As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them. Yet, I can’t see how a rational person would exist surrounded by irrational people in an irrational world. Surrounded by irrational people, in an irrational world, it seems to me the proper philosophy is an irrational philosophy - there’s no way for a rational person to thrive.

I believe most peope are rational - what would probably be best termed as “common sense.” I believe they evaluate the assertions of others, and use the knowledge they possess to the best of their abilities within the framework of their current knowledge. I believe they accept reality as a given, and can identify contradictions and “bullshit.” They still cling to mystical ideas, and gravitate toward socialism, because their current knowledge is lacking. That is where organizations like ARI come in - to present ideas which, once heard, “make sense,” and serve as an alternative to the ideas which most recognize, on some level, do not “make sense.”

Politically, socially, and philosophically we are in a time much like the Scientific Revolution of the 1700s. As scientists of that era presented alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of the Church, most accepted these explanations for what they were - objective facts. Now, we need philosophers, like Ms. Rand, Mr. Peikoff, and Mr. Brook to present alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of Kant, Marx, and Obama.

If most people are rational, then these alternatives will be accepted for what they are - objective facts. If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.

phibetakappa · December 31, 2009, 5:25pm

Why do people continuously ask this question?

What does it matter if some or the great majority of people are not rational?

If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.

This is just not true.

There is no such thing as trying to “live” an irrational life. Life absolutely requires rationality.

You need to concretetize what life is, what it requires and what rationality is. Examine in detail what life as a man requires, and what part reason plays in it.

Reason is man’s basic means of survival. (period).

Concretize this! It may take you many hours but do the work.

You are using all these terms semi-floating-ly.

If you take the time to concretize these terms this particular question would just seem like non-sense to you.

Rationality is not an alternative life style, where there are alternatives of other ways to live.

Again: there is no such thing as trying to “live” an irrational life. Life absolutely requires rationality.

Life for a man requires rationality because production of the goods/services our lives require absolutely requires rationality.

The only alternative is if one steals the goods/services they need from others who think to produce them.

So-called ‘living irrationally’ literally means living as a parasite; it means waiting on the fringe for some real thinking man to produce some good and/or money; then sweeping in either:

forcibly taking it from him or (loot it)
some how convincing him to give it to you. (mooch it)

There is no alternative.

Reason is required for production, i.e., for sustaining and/or enhancing man’s life. ( period ).

Any proposed alternative necessarily is some form of parasitism and necessarily requires victims.

Thus victims either give up their rationally produced goods/services voluntarily (I.e., stupidly) influenced by the evil philosophy of altruism;

or they are forced to give up those goods.

Life requires the production and use of values, and values require reason. (period).

Here are some of the rational requirements of any given value:

*A value must be selected qua value, i.e., some man must rationally evaluate a potential value.

*A value must be produced via a rational plan of action, i.e., some man must formulate a plan of action to produce the value.

*A value must actually produce the value, i.e., some man must sustain a rational process, working through the given plan, step-by-step until the value is actualized.

*A value must be guarded and/or kept, i.e., a man must figure out how the value is going to be maintained. What kind of up keep does it require, what kind of cost does it incur.

*A value must be used or consumed at the right time, i.e., a man must rationally know when to use the value with in the the context of his life.

This is what life requires.

To try to get around these requirements necessarily requires literal parasitism of some form described above, either by force, fraud, and/or mooching.

The goods and service life requires are not just here somehow.

They must be produced. Production requires reason. ( Period )

JeffS · December 31, 2009, 6:19pm

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, phibetakappa. I even wrote as much when I wrote, “As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them.” Yet the fact remains that many people do live their lives as parasites; that is, they survive irrationally. In fact, Man has survived his entire time on this planet under some form of collectivism and irrational philosophy - by looting and mooching off the productive efforts of rational individuals. Some individuals have died, yet many have gone from cradle to grave without producing anything but CO2.

phibetakappa · December 31, 2009, 6:21pm

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, phibetakappa. I even wrote as much when I wrote, “As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them.” Yet the fact remains that many people do live their lives as parasites; that is, they survive irrationally. In fact, Man has survived his entire time on this planet under some form of collectivism and irrational philosophy - by looting and mooching off the productive efforts of rational individuals. Some individuals have died, yet many have gone from cradle to grave without producing anything but CO2.

So what?

itsjames · December 31, 2009, 8:53pm

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, phibetakappa. I even wrote as much when I wrote, “As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them.” Yet the fact remains that many people do live their lives as parasites; that is, they survive irrationally. In fact, Man has survived his entire time on this planet under some form of collectivism and irrational philosophy - by looting and mooching off the productive efforts of rational individuals. Some individuals have died, yet many have gone from cradle to grave without producing anything but CO2.

Being rational does not guarantee happiness. But I think it is necessary in order to attain a certain kind of happiness. This kind of happiness is only possible to a man who understands reality and is in control of his own life. Understanding is only possible through reason and rationality.

For an irrational person, “happiness” can only be attained through an act of dishonesty to oneself. To be happy, an irrational person would need to convince himself somehow that he is in control of his life or he would need to blank out the fact that he isn’t in control. But you can never completely convince yourself of something without using reason. There would always be a dim sense that something wasn’t quite right, which you would have to suppress. The second option, blanking out, kills your capacity to be fully happy, because happiness, like any emotion, is a response to reality. If you’re blanking out a fact of reality, you can’t make an evaluation of that fact, and so you can’t have an emotion with respect to it.

TLD · December 31, 2009, 9:29pm

Those who are primarily irrational cannot be truly happy. But, yes, they can survive.

Happiness requires the achievement of one’s values. It cannot be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims.

Rationality is the most fundamental virtue: it means “the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.”

JeffS: “If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.”

PBK is absolutely right on this and on his advice to study these concepts more.

If you consistently hold onto Obj. principles, the worst result will be some degree of alienation from the irrational majority. SO you have to choose between living a reasoned/moral life or having more “friends.”

That does not say that your friends have to all be Objectivists: one cannot expect others to choose to study philosophy and understand moral concepts as you might. But an Obj. does need to eliminate those “friends” who remain significantly irrational after your attempts to help them understand moral principles.

phibetakappa · December 31, 2009, 11:17pm

Surrounded by irrational people, in an irrational world, it seems to me the proper philosophy is an irrational philosophy - there’s no way for a rational person to thrive.

I don’t know where you live, but if you are surrounded by irrational people; and the government does not uphold individual rights. My advice would be to move, because your life depends on it.

America still upholds sufficient individual rights that one does not have to loot the looters.

If the world does get to the point where fundamental rights are not upheld and the vast majority of people are fighting over scraps; then a rational philosophy is what one would need the most because society would have collapsed and we will need every bit of our ability to live in the wilderness, as it is much more difficult to try to live under primitive circumstances.

But the situation you are describing is not the way things are in America today, but how it is in many 3rd world countries.

If one does try to live in such lawless circumstances, where it is killed or be killed, then the situation is amoral , until and unless individual rights can be upheld. Read Ayn Rand’s VOS chapter entitled “The Ethics of Emergencies.”

Here is the conclusion of the article:

Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics, that is: from a theory about the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts. The altruist ethics is based on a “malevolent universe” metaphysics, on the theory that man, by his very nature, is helpless and doomed—that success, happiness, achievement are impossible to him—that emergencies, disasters, catastrophes are the norm of his life and that his primary goal is to combat them.

As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics-- as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of his existence—observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.

Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men’s normal existence and that they always offer “lifeboat” situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. (“What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one?” etc.)

[Note: Or what should you do if you are surrounded by irrational people? --PBK]

The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats—and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one’s metaphysics.

The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental—as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence— and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life. (VOS, 56)

This last clause is my point: “values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.”

The production of values, not disasters, (including the disasters people make of their own mind and/or life) are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.

Values are the goal. Values are the first concern. Values are the motive power of his life.

A world full of irrational pseudo-human parasitical cannibals would be an ugly and dangerous place to live. But if one was to continue to live then maintaining one’s rationality would be critical. The same way it would be critical if one lived in any primitive wilderness surrounded by dangerous man eating creatures.

The solution would not be to try to reduced one’s self to an animal mentality and attempt to live on a sub-human level.

The solution would be to try to live as a man or die trying.

anonrobt · January 1, 2010, 12:32am

This topic came up in another thread, but it has always lingered at the back of my mind: Do most people on this planet think and behave rationally? That is, do they base their decisions and actions primarily upon reality; do they think about the assertions of others before making up their own minds? Or, rather, do they go through life like zombies, following the actions and decisions of others?

I’m not talking about an Ayn Rand level of focus. I’m not asking if they are rational all the time, at all points in their lives, with every decision and every action. Just whether, on average, for a predominate amount of time, are they rational?

If they are, why do so many still cling to mystical ideas, why do so many gravitate toward socialism?

If they are not, then wouldn’t the rational course of action be to “get mine while the gettin’s to be got?” If the mob is a bunch of mystics, trying to take the unearned, and my rational highest value is my own life and my own happiness, wouldn’t the rational course of action be to not stand apart from those mystics, lest they see me as a heretic and kill me. Woudn’t it be rational to take as much as I can, regardless of who earned it? Wouldn’t it be rational to create nothing - to not work myself so hard just to have it taken?

As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them. Yet, I can’t see how a rational person would exist surrounded by irrational people in an irrational world. Surrounded by irrational people, in an irrational world, it seems to me the proper philosophy is an irrational philosophy - there’s no way for a rational person to thrive.

I believe most peope are rational - what would probably be best termed as “common sense.” I believe they evaluate the assertions of others, and use the knowledge they possess to the best of their abilities within the framework of their current knowledge. I believe they accept reality as a given, and can identify contradictions and “bullshit.” They still cling to mystical ideas, and gravitate toward socialism, because their current knowledge is lacking. That is where organizations like ARI come in - to present ideas which, once heard, “make sense,” and serve as an alternative to the ideas which most recognize, on some level, do not “make sense.”

Politically, socially, and philosophically we are in a time much like the Scientific Revolution of the 1700s. As scientists of that era presented alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of the Church, most accepted these explanations for what they were - objective facts. Now, we need philosophers, like Ms. Rand, Mr. Peikoff, and Mr. Brook to present alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of Kant, Marx, and Obama.

If most people are rational, then these alternatives will be accepted for what they are - objective facts. If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.

While it is true humans require rationality to live, it is not an automatic - it has to be learned… further, its value has to be learned, and if its value is not taught as such as being more than a ‘necessary evil’ or similar, then its usability conforms more to the notion of ‘common sense’ or haphazardly applied rationality - with all the ensuing contradictions and irrationalities you have noticed, just as you have noticed that ‘their current knowledge is lacking’… but it is more than just pointing out this - there is a need of persuasion that the total rational is indeed the needed, and that it not involve the conflicting and/or repression of emotions, as is oft given… you have to realize that there is an inertial problems of strong habituation involved as well, which for many makes changing their views and acceptances more difficult, even if they intellectually agree with the rational view…

JeffS · January 2, 2010, 6:18am

So what?

Then it must be possible to live irrationally. How can I argue an individual must live rationally when the entire history of mankind demonstrates this is not necessary? Yes, some individual, or even a great many individuals, must live rationally else there would be no one for the irrational to loot and mooch from. But this is not proof that all individuals must live rational lives. Yes, if we include the concept of happiness, then the necessity of a rational life for all (who value happiness) is proved. But what if someone doesn’t care about their own happiness? Yes, if society collapses then one would need his rationality most of all, but as long as there are productive individuals to loot from rationality is not necessary.

But the situation you are describing is not the way things are in America today, but how it is in many 3rd world countries.

I live in America, and I am surrounded by irrational people. The vast majority of people in America, and on the planet, believe in some super-natural being. This is not rational. There seems to be a growing population in this country, and most countries already have a majority of the population who believe it’s moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor. This is not rational.

In the discussion which prompted this thread, RationalBiker wrote: "I see the evidence around me of many, many people who put too little thought into the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives…/…I’ve had discussion with quite a few people who really don’t want to put a whole lot of thought into questions like “how should I live my life…” I agree with this sentiment, and would take it further - most people don’t think about the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives. Certainly, that’s not rational, is it? There was discussion on the power of using emotions in promulgating ideas; how advertisers and political “handlers” manipulate individuals into acting the way the advertisers and political handlers want them to act, get individuals to believe what they want them to believe. Blindly following the whims and dictates of someone who creates a pretty message isn’t rational.

So then, the question comes down to: In a world where so many are irrational, where so many put so little thought into what’s in their heads, where so many are so easily manipulated, what is a rational person to do? Do they try to present their alternative (rationality) in a pretty picture so more will accept it? That doesn’t seem to address the underlying problem - an irrational person who simply accepts rationality because it’s given to them in a palatable way isn’t really rational. Do they present their alternative in a way that makes the irrational person think about the message? What good would that do when those to whom the message is directed don’t think? Or, as you seem to imply, does he cling fast to his rationality with the realization that he is beset on all sides by those who wish to loot and mooch from him, and he always will be?

Furthermore, if most are not rational, then isn’t that “the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts,” or at least the fundamental nature of most of the individual men?

AllMenAreIslands · January 4, 2010, 8:23pm

I’ve been wondering whether the fact of choosing to be rational is what really separates us from pre-historic man. Those who advocate individual rights, eradication of legalized theft & plunder and establishment of objective laws are Rational Man and the only ones deserving of the name Homo sapiens. Meanwhile the brutes who today vote to nationalize health care are simply acting on their genetic make-up, striving to re-unite with “the herd.” Homo collectivist if you will. There simply is no reasoning with such beasts, is there?

phibetakappa · January 5, 2010, 2:28am

Then it must be possible to live irrationally.

You need to check your premises.

As I stated in great detail it is possible for people qua irrational to survive as parasites by the production of some other rational men. I am not arguing that parasitism is not possible.

But just because men have the choice to be irrational, and to behave as animals using force to seize goods from other rational men, does not mean they have to. That is what is meant by the ‘free’ in freewill.

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character”(Atlas Shrugged, 934).

You are not giving volition, freewill, i.e., choice it’s due.

Ayn Rand makes the point this way:

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice —and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice: he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues— by choice” (Atlas Shrugged, 931).

You only accept one side of the implications of this fact about man’s nature. You whine that man is doomed because he has the horrific burden of having to be moral, i.e., to choose to think.

Rather, than considering every single blade of grass, synthetic carpet fiber, building, productive material; rather than dropping to your knees and praise the productive genius of all the great men who provided you with your central heating, clothes, plush chair, keyboard and computer.

You choose to look for sewers, and people who have made their own souls sewers, and claim that it is stupid irrational brutes that need to be taken seriously, and who provide proof that existence is a hopeless sham.

Rather, than choosing to exist on a sub-human level, some men can choose to be men; they can choose to act according to their nature, and use their minds according to their mind’s nature.

And if the world is as you complain it is (and it’s NOT), then how much more wonderful, and how much more thanks you should give to those few wonderful men who have made your beleaguered existence possible.

Howard Roark in “The Fountainhead” makes the point:

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.” (The Fountainhead, 678)

Look around you. REALLY LOOK, and you THINK! Everything you are surrounded by is a testament to the great, rational men who have blessed our existence with the residual artifacts of their choice to be men.

"To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think . But a ‘moral commandment’ is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. (Atlas Shrugged, 936)

In my perfect world…if I were god…

But to the extent a given person is irrational, does not plan for his future, or does not follow productive plans of actions, he produces nothing.

You act as if you acknowledge this fact. Further, you act as if this is some kind of evidence that supports your position of metaphysical futility and hopelessness.

You seem to hold the premise that: “In my perfect world men would have no choice about being rational.”

“ Thou shalt think. But a ‘moral commandment’ is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. (AS, 936)

This is called “rewriting reality.” You subjectively state as if you want to be god, that if I were to have made the universe, I would have made it impossible for men to be irrational. I would have given them no choice about choosing to think. You seem to want to press your subjective whim on to reality; and now you are frustrated and malevolent because you can’t delude yourself in to accepting your own fantasy.

Take the simplest good you can think of, such as something that supposedly occurs abundantly in nature, such as a bunch of grapes or bananas. It likely took thousands of years for men to figure out what few plants he could safely eat. Note: “figure out” is a euphemism for rational thought. He would have had to observe, identify and integrate what, where, when, how to collect every scrap of food he would need for his prehistoric survival.

But, we stroll down to the nearest of dozens of available SUPER markets and pay a few cents for a bunch of grapes and never give a thought to all the THOUGHT that makes the purchase possible; the thousands of years of thought that brought our modern society into existence, and all the advancements (thought) needed to keep it and/or to make it flourish.

Some tribes of savages still attempt to survive using only a modicum of reason, there’s thousands of hours of TV programming and research dedicated to the various savages around the world. To the extent they are rational & figure out how to get their food they survive. When they reach the limits of the knowledge they or their ancestor’s reason provided them they die like animals.

It is not possible to live as a man qua man irrationally.

A man can only survive irrationally living off of victims; victims who in some capacity, degree and time have to be rational to produce the goods and services man in general needs to live. The goods and services man needs for his life are not "just here,” to be used. Goods must be produced. (period).

Ayn Rand makes the point in Galt’s Speech:

“…morality is a matter of choice. Men are free not to choose man’s survival as the standard of their morals and their laws, but not free to escape from the fact that the alternative is a cannibal society, which exists for a while by devouring its best and collapses like a cancerous body, when the healthy have been eaten by the diseased, when the rational have been consumed by the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged, “This is John Galt Speaking”, 976)

Man has a volitional consciousness, i.e., he has freewill, and he can choose to think or not; therefore, he can choose to be a man or not. If he chooses to think and produce what he needs for his life and well-being, he’s choosing to behave as a man, i.e., in a way that is consonant with the nature of his mind, his basic tool for survival.

How can I argue an individual must live rationally when the entire history of mankind demonstrates this is not necessary?

You could not be more wrong. The entire history of man demonstrates that being rational is necessary.

Advice

There is no argument that is going to “force” someone to think. But for some reason you seem to be obsessed with trying to make other people think. You should really worry about your mind, and your own epistemology. Until you understand precisely what rationality is and what it actually, in concrete detail , makes possible around you you’ll never be able to form a persuasive argument as to the benefits of reason, and/or why men should spend more time fostering it in their lives.

Stop saying you do not disagree with whatever, and actual do the thinking required to agree or not. Look at the various goods and services and ask how did they get here?

Ask, whose more important, and what should I take more seriously: modern savages, bewailing the hopelessness of their existence; or the evidence all around of the power and potency of reason.

JeffS · January 5, 2010, 5:39am

You only accept one side of the implications of this fact about man’s nature. You whine that man is doomed because he has the horrific burden of having to be moral, i.e., to choose to think.

*sigh* To my knowledge, I have not whined about anything. I certainly have neither stated, nor implied, that thinking is a horrific burden, or any burden at all.

And if the world is as you complain it is (and it’s NOT), then how much more wonderful, and how much more thanks you should give to those few wonderful men who have made your beleaguered existence possible.

I don’t have to give thanks to anyone. “Those few wonderful men” did nothing to make my “beleaguered existence possible.” They did what they did, whatever they did, with not even a passing thought to my existence. They did it for themselves. They neither require, nor expect my thanks. As it should be.

You subjectively state as if you want to be god, that if I were to have made the universe, I would have made it impossible for men to be irrational. I would have given them no choice about choosing to think. You seem to want to press your subjective whim on to reality; and now you are frustrated and malevolent because you can’t delude yourself in to accepting your own fantasy.

Are you reading what I write? Because none of this speaks to my position. I realize it is difficult to keep arguments separate in a medium such as this, but there haven’t been a lot of replies. Furthermore, there’s nothing forcing you to reply to me at all. It’s interesting that you take on a subject which, from the beginning, you seem to have little tolerance in addressing, yet address it anyway. What’s motivating you?

Thanks for your time, phibetakappa. No reply is necessary.

phibetakappa · January 5, 2010, 12:59pm

*sigh* To my knowledge, I have not whined about anything. I certainly have neither stated, nor implied, that thinking is a horrific burden, or any burden at all.

I don’t have to give thanks to anyone. “Those few wonderful men” did nothing to make my “beleaguered existence possible.” They did what they did, whatever they did, with not even a passing thought to my existence. They did it for themselves. They neither require, nor expect my thanks. As it should be.

Are you reading what I write? Because none of this speaks to my position. I realize it is difficult to keep arguments separate in a medium such as this, but there haven’t been a lot of replies. Furthermore, there’s nothing forcing you to reply to me at all. It’s interesting that you take on a subject which, from the beginning, you seem to have little tolerance in addressing, yet address it anyway. What’s motivating you?

Thanks for your time, phibetakappa. No reply is necessary.

Are you reading what I write?

If I did not have any tolerance addressing the topic I would not have written a single word back to you.

I don’t have to give thanks to anyone. “Those few wonderful men” did nothing to make my “beleaguered existence possible.” They did what they did, whatever they did, with not even a passing thought to my existence. They did it for themselves. They neither require, nor expect my thanks. As it should be.

No you don’t have to give thanks. But the product of rationality is what you are surrounded by. But you choose to consider only irrational people as important. Irrational people don’t move the world, they are impotent by definition. But your philosophy is to make them such a high priority that you complain about things being hopeless, and act as if your high priority is to figure out some magical argument to convince irrational people to somehow be rational.

Why are you obsessed with other people, especially the bad ones?

phibetakappa · January 5, 2010, 1:30pm

The vast majority of people in America, and on the planet, believe in some super-natural being. This is not rational.

There seems to be a growing population in this country, and most countries already have a majority of the population who believe it’s moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor. This is not rational.

I agree with this sentiment, and would take it further - most people don’t think about the philosophical and political ideas they accept and implement into their lives. Certainly, that’s not rational, is it?

Blindly following the whims and dictates of someone who creates a pretty message isn’t rational.

Rationality is not an all or nothing proposition. Men have volition. They can choose to be irrational about some things and evade others. The numbers of wholly irrational men, especially in this country are very small.

Because people hold a few irrational ideas does not make them essentially irrational. The vast majority of people give only lip services to “god,” because it provides them with some sense of control over aspects of their lives where they feel are out of their control; and/or they like the pleasant social aspect of being around perceived peers.

You overgeneralize.

Most men hold contradictory premises, premises which they apply and use only in specific contexts.

Most men don’t have knowledge of rational philosophy. And they have been filled with bad ideas. There is a huge difference between errors of knowledge and moral offenses.

Bad ideas such as: holding a few bad ideas makes a person wholly “irrational.”

So then, the question comes down to: In a world where so many are irrational…

You haven’t proved this thesis. This is an out of context absolute. You have chosen to look at non-essentials and leap to an unwarranted generalization. Holding a few bad ideas in certain contexts does not make a person “irrational.” It makes them irrational in specific contexts, and with regard to specific ideas.

Further, people can be acting on incorrect ideas, i.e., on errors in their knowledge.

So then, the question comes down to: In a world where so many are irrational, where so many put so little thought into what’s in their heads, where so many are so easily manipulated, what is a rational person to do?

What is a rational person to do? So, far in the context of thinking about other people and about what rationality consists of, you have been proving yourself again irrational. You refuse to consider the context of rationality.