No, men are not identical. And I see exactly what you’re saying- because everyone is an individual, nothing can universally apply to everyone’s mind. Is that about right?
That our DIFFERENCES automatically exclude any such generalizations?
“Man is blind because he has eyes” (and doomed because he has choice)!
It amazes me that as the resident “strict determinist” I’m the one having to defend human potential.
I think the only route to the rational utopia you envision is a deterministic one.
I just want to make the point that this topic is complete rationalism.
It takes an isolated abstraction: “Man has free will” and uses that as the base in which to deduce. So since man has free will by his nature, then it is possible to have a society or a world in which every man is rational.
That is a concrete example of “thinking in a vaccuum”. It completely ignores the fact that men, for whatever reason, choose not to think rationally.
It’s the equivalent of saying: “Since man has free will, then it is possible that everyone in Connecticut will decide to come to my school and bring me a cookie.”
Since mind reading is not possible, it is not possible to decide whether an individual is being irrational or dishonest. My own hunch is that there is very little irrationality regarding practical issues and that much of the remaining irrationality is the result of verbal confusion rather than a failure of logic. Even young children seem to have excellent reasoning abilities.
So I come to the conclusion that much of what is labeled “irrational” is probably just dishonest attempts to trick or fool others.
For purposes of designing a political system, all one has to do is assume the possibility of dishonesty in all individuals and design accordingly. The first rule (law), then, needs to be that all rules apply to all individuals - aka equal rights under the law. That first rule acts to prevent most subsequent bad laws.
That first law (legal equality) has never been tried and the results of legal inequality are all around us. Those results aren’t the result of irrationality, but of a ruling elite making rules for others that they themselves do not need to obey.
Those results aren’t the result of irrationality, but of a ruling elite making rules for others that they themselves do not need to obey.
In other words, it is sometimes the result of rationality or a verbal confusion? Dishonesty is irrational. Labeling it irrational is probably just a dishonest attempt to trick or fool you. What’s wrong with being dishonest, then? Dishonesty, if it is neither rational nor irrational, may sometimes be a rational for your goals. Very little irrationality exists for practical issues, therefore any dishonesty is usually rational. But then somehow the “ruling elite” are not involved in practical issues, so by your tone, I presume these people are mostly verbally confused and irrational. Although you don’t think irrational is a good label, so we can’t call these people irrational. But if they are only confused, what’s morally bad about that? Since all you imply is maybe/probably, this is moot - we can’t ever be sure. We’re left with probabilities. Assume as a heuristic that everybody lies and you’ll be safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNOExDrsdbg
Now I’m verbally confused!
I think the only route to the rational utopia you envision is a deterministic one.
Please clarify this.
That is a concrete example of “thinking in a vaccuum”. It completely ignores the fact that men, for whatever reason, choose not to think rationally.
And that’s where you’re wrong. I’m not ignoring the fact that the vast majority of homo sapiens alive today are not rational.
Do you honestly believe that I started this thread by identifying a nearly universal fallacy, and happen to be operating on the assumption that everyone (including you) is completely rational at present?
I’m not ignoring anyone’s irrationality; I’m attempting to comprehend the reasons for it, on the premise that even stupidity can be understood.
What do you call a belief which cannot be understood and is simultaneously assumed to be true? It’s either axiomatic or an act of faith; you tell me which one applies to entire civilizations.
It takes an isolated abstraction: “Man has free will” and uses that as the base in which to deduce. So since man has free will by his nature, then it is possible to have a society or a world in which every man is rational.
Does that base contradict a single fact of reality?
It’s the equivalent of saying: “Since man has free will, then it is possible that everyone in Connecticut will decide to come to my school and bring me a cookie.”
Under the proper conditions, yes. That’s the gist of it. Why is this even an issue?
What irritates me so much about this is that you’re refusing point-blank to give it any serious consideration, for no other reason than the fact that it’s unprecedented. This frustrates me immeasurably because it violates what I expect from someone so familiar with Objectivism.
Now, my expectations were perhaps not entirely realistic, and I’ll concede that; I apologize for the implicit application of a standard you may well be incapable of reaching, for all I know.
And if you’re already convinced that I’m not being realistic then let’s agree to disagree.
Live long and prosper.
Since mind reading is not possible, it is not possible to decide whether an individual is being irrational or dishonest.
Yes, it is. It actually is possible to figure out what any individual has, is or will think or do, given the proper information and methodology.
If it were not then civilization would not be conceivable, let alone achievable.
For purposes of designing a political system, all one has to do is assume the possibility of dishonesty in all individuals and design accordingly.
Do you grasp how this statement relates to thenelli’s position? The irony would be hilarious, were it not so tragic.
In other words…
Now I’m verbally confused!
Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn’t say is probably why you are confused.
Assume as a heuristic that everybody lies and you’ll be safe.
Now I’m verbally confused!
The entire argument is predicated on the liar’s paradox! 
Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn’t say is probably why you are confused.
B)
Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn’t say is probably why you are confused.
There’s a reason there’s a question mark. That sentence was a question about if I understood. The other sentences were using premises you presented, not paraphrasing. If it’s nonsense, that’s exactly why your argument/position made no sense! I never claimed you said or meant to imply what I wrote, but the implication and logic of what you said is still there.
The confusion line was a joke, another way of saying “nope, you’re wrong”.
Since I began this thread, I’ve learned that Ayn Rand already named the infernal thing.
Do not confuse “man worship” with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion. . . These neomystics are not man-worshipers; they are merely the secularizers of as profound a hatred for man as that of their avowedly mystic predecessors.
A cruder variant of the same hatred is represented by those concrete-bound, “statistical” mentalities who—unable to grasp the meaning of man’s volition—declare that man cannot be an object of worship, since they have never encountered any specimens of humanity who deserved it.
The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . .
-Ayn Rand
Found it in the Lexicon under “Man worship”.
Humans are inherently irrational - and this is neither good nor bad, it just is. We don’t say that earthworms, eagles, dogs, cows, etc. are irrational. We only say this about humans.
If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual? I’m not sure what a “completely rational” human society would look like, but I’m pretty certain I’d not like to live in it.
Humans are inherently irrational - and this is neither good nor bad, it just is. We don’t say that earthworms, eagles, dogs, cows, etc. are irrational. We only say this about humans.
If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual? I’m not sure what a “completely rational” human society would look like, but I’m pretty certain I’d not like to live in it.
What does it mean to say “human are inherently irrational”? Are a majority of all decisions made by all individuals irrational? If that were the case, we would all be dead. Does it mean that human beings aren’t always 100% rational? If so, then that’s bad terminology.
What does it mean to say “human are inherently irrational”? Are a majority of all decisions made by all individuals irrational? If that were the case, we would all be dead. Does it mean that human beings aren’t always 100% rational? If so, then that’s bad terminology.
You make a valid point, Dorm. I could have worded it better.
My main point (which you did not respond to, by the way…) is why is irrationality even possible in the first place? Why did nature allow it to come to be that humans can be irrational? And if irrationality is so bad, why didn’t evolution weed it out? Until this is answered, people will treat irrationality as an “original sin”.
My main point (which you did not respond to, by the way…) is why is irrationality even possible in the first place?
All forms of irrationality stem from the premise that ideas don’t matter; that the human mind is something outside of causality. Look at Pascal’s Wager for a concrete example of that premise.
This can be seen both in the Libertarian concept of volition (thinking and acting causelessly) and in the behaviorist reaction to it (attributing all thoughts and actions to external causes).
The idea that consciousness is outside of causality has been passed down hereditarily over countless generations, through the things that parents teach their children. It is derivative of the Primacy of Consciousness and this ancestral concept can be traced to the beginning of recorded history.
Why did nature allow it to come to be that humans can be irrational?
The Primacy of Consciousness requires one to turn a blind eye to one’s own mind. It essentially requires, not one or two failures to introspect, but a chronic state of such failures. In the context of our prehistoric ancestors, such a failure would be completely understandable (perhaps even logical); survival was their first priority.
In any case our ancestors’ earliest records clearly shows that they could not discern between “in here” and “out there”.
And if irrationality is so bad, why didn’t evolution weed it out?
It does. That’s why we give them Darwin Awards.
If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual? I’m not sure what a “completely rational” human society would look like, but I’m pretty certain I’d not like to live in it.
And the implicit premise in your own statement, right here, is that ideas don’t matter.
@Harrison
“All forms of irrationality stem from the premise that ideas don’t matter”
Your missing my point, and your reply is rather simplistic. My question - and it is to hopefully spark some insightful responses and not just cliché answers - is what make irrationality possible in the first place? What neurological component allows humans to be uniquely irrational? Why did it develop? Evolution does NOT weed it out, since we all inherit the capacity to be irrational. And why do we not consider the behavior of other animals as irrational? Is irrationality a necessary offshoot of volition? Is volition only made possible BY the capacity to be irrational?
If I were the proverbial Man-from-Mars and I landed on Earth, the first thing that I would notice is that the dominate, intelligent species on the planet has the capacity for irrationally. I wouldn’t just cast the observation aside and say that “irrationality stems from the premise that ideas don’t matter”.
What neurological component allows humans to be uniquely irrational?
The same neurological component that allows for innovation. Our capacity to think outside the box is also our capacity to think outside of reality. I’m not saying that doesn’t matter.
I am saying the different ways it can be used are separable, it can be used for good instead of evil and that the latter is not and can not be of value.
New Buddha, your question is reversed. The questions that serves as a better basis here are; “What is it that make rationality possible in the first place?” Why did rationality develop? What neurological component allows human being to be uniquely rational? Why do we consider the behavior of other animals to be ‘instinctual?’ Is rationality an offshoot of volition? Is volition only made understood by the discovery discovered by the recognition that that error is possible?
Edited: previous, updated.