If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[Fireball]

I've followed this thread with some interest, and have seen some interesting dialog. I'll weigh in with the opinion that the world would be better off with rational behavior. I've been very creative with the design of both electrical and mechanical things in my life, and don't consider irrationality to be any kind of initiator or enabler of creativity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Philosophically, I see an unsolvable paradox. Psychologically though, that is how the world feels to me. As I will explain...

That much is obvious, right....?  Just as I don't is equally obvious.  Perhaps, and this will be the third time I suggested as much, this has more to do with one person attaching the truth of an idea to a doomed premise, than it does to there being any paradox, unsolvable or otherwise?

Ultimately, I'm to take you seriously, and that means assuming that you see whatever mundane thing fills my own apprehension - you and I being pretty much interchangeable, and still you have an unresolvable where I don't.  It's a conundrum, for sure, but not so much for me.

Just to be clear I am not talking about faith in any particular religious tradition. I am talking about faith, or rather trust, in the basic presuppositions of rational thought.

I used to maintain that beliefs in the efficacy of human reason and an underlying cosmic order are properly basic beliefs. I would not say that they are necessarily true; but rather, in the absence of defeaters, both beliefs have warrant. As such, the right and proper epistimological approach would be to act "as if" our reality is indeed has a rational order and reason can illuminate that order. That, as opposed to taking the skeptical stance that any perceived order is just illusion and that any similarity between the stories in our heads and what is really going...any similarity is accidental.

You seemed to agree and immediately judged those beliefs to be obvious. Yes, reality has an underlying rational order* and, yes, human intelligence can have true discernment. But because of my current subjective psychological state though, I am questioning that obviousness and whether or not either belief qualifies properly basic.

*I know I am being a little sloppy with term like "intelligible reality" or "cosmic order".

Neither am I.  You said you took those things on faith and lost that faith.  I can see how, if a person took those things on faith, and lost that faith, they might feel as though they lost those things.  All of this is independent of any state of affairs in fact or mere reality..as whichever thing is true, that there's a there there or there isn't....you've managed to believe both. 

For my part, I can only see the one, and it doesn't take faith or even some explicitly scientific worldview, just eyeballs.  Again, you're only telling me about the disadvantages of taking things on faith. I don't know what to say other than...of course. Faith as you held it was poorly constructed, and failed. I don't have to concern myself over a failure of faith in this regard or any other. This..because I tend to ascribe truth only to things which are manifestly so, rather than believing in something on faith which was not manifestly so by other means.

Is human intelligence effective? Yes, manifestly so, and you might save yourself the ironic embarrassment of arguing otherwise. Is there order to reality? Again manifestly so..so much so that our lives depend on it. I don't have to clap real hard, or cheer, or close my eyes and wish and believe in what I can't see, faithing either thing into existence. These, frankly, are softball issues.

So, again, is there some specific irrationality or even a necessity of faith, or did you just register your objection to the idea that any thought is or can be rational, in toto..as you shared your apparently a-rational thoughts..with us? Am I just yelling down a cave here, do you really not appreciate the bind you've put yourself, and only yourself... in? I appreciate that you might be doing a thing because of your current pyschological state - but that's not exactly interchangeable with doing something because of some factual external state of affairs.....

I accept that your misplaced faith has caused you pain, I guess? I believe that this is a thing that's happened to you? Tale as old as time, is that what you want to hear? To be truthful, I think that you're pulling my leg, and you admit as much in that post. You didn't stop seeing order in the universe, you stopped believing in some faith imposed order that was important to you. You didn't stop thinking that human intelligence was effective, you're just consoling yourself with it's hypothetical inability as a final defense of the very faith you claim to have lost. Be less sloppy, your delivery is important to understanding what the fuck you're even talking about.

/two cents.

[LadyForCamus]

Again, I look at the show "X-Files" as competing with WWF, now known as WWE, and Fucks News. They were simply targeting the same audience that sells psychic hotlines for 5 dollars a minute.

P.T. Barnum was at least willing to admit you could point to someone's toes, and say, "Your shoes are untied".

So did Mulder. Season 3, episode 17. 😉

[LadyForCamus]

@vulcanlogician

...blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself-so like a brother, really-I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.

Should a pigeon trapped in a Skinner box all its life feel any different? Is it better off being "rational" and trying to obtain a better understanding of its predicament? Or, if it had the faculties to realize it, why shouldn't it pronounce its circumstances absurd?

And this the rub for me. The former position seems impossible and the latter feels unsustainable. In the end, Meursault was comforted in his acceptance of reality’s indifference. I can’t imagine being at peace with absurdity. After some time thinking on it, I notice there is a difference between asserting “there is no reason to live” and “there is no reason for life;” no “why.”  I concede to Nudger that I was wrong to say that there are no rational reasons to live, but my question then becomes: if it’s true that there is no reason for life, is that fact a rational basis for not wanting to live? Or is that irrational? Or am I just talking myself in circles, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that there are people who would tell you that organic chemistry is the reason for life.

-but, if that answer doesn't satisfy, because we're looking for some other thing when we ask, something other than "chemistry", then I think I could come up with a way to understand the phrase and also conclude that there's no reason for life. I guess it would depend on the fact, and the person?

I do think that a more direct route would be to ask if there's reason to want. I think that's what we're wondering about when we consider whatever immediately charitable cases we might entertain for a person wanting to die and being rational about it in some or any sense. We see their reasons for want - in a simple reductive case, we might see that what they want, is a reduction of pain or misery - and we can grant that it might be rational to pursue a reduction of pain and misery.

[vulcanlogician]

I concede to Nudger that I was wrong to say that there are no rational reasons to live, but my question then becomes: if it’s true that there is no reason for life, is that fact a rational basis for not wanting to live?

I mean, there are reasons to live. But these reasons are contingent, and that's the rub for me. It's why I think Albert Camus's argument is something we should all keep in our back pocket. His argument urges us on even when there aren't reasons. If we're willing to accept a little absurdity, we can get through whatever it is, no problem. Even our own execution can be "kinda nice."

The absurdist position breaks down when you have no need of it though. When you have reasons to live that are meaningful to you, no need to see life as absurd. Then we can (and should) have a Platonic disposition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't any reason for anything always be contingent? If, then. The basis of facts supplied informing the conclusion, and absent those particular facts, some other conclusion? Similarly, if camus is arguing anything, he's providing contingent reason, no?

I can think of circumstances where there would be no reason for life and no reason to live - but those circumstances don't align with the circumstances of this life. As far as use cases, the needfulness of a tool - I can see that a person might come through error or brute force to apprehend the world as though those contingent cases for not wanting to live or there being no reason to live or there being no reason for life are true.

We might then need an effective tool to break us out of that funk - but there's no requirement that the tools contents be accurate, or true - we're on to effectiveness at that point. If thinking that life is absurd helps us cope with something, or overcome a specific difficulty, that may not be contingent on the belief that life is absurd being true. The use case of "when there aren't reasons" being untrue as a circumstance insomuch as camus has offered a reason in that specific event.

Me, personally...lol, anything that gets people through the day, right? I don't think life is absurd, but I do think it can be difficult and unsatisfying. If by accepting the absurd a person can employ their greatest freedom, then they might have contingent reason to live in the absurdist world. Contingent on the value they place on freedom and the exercise of freedom. I think that if I did see life as absurd, I probably could be compelled by an argument like that. For a little giggle, it might be true even if the world -isn't- absurd. A person who sees as much and accepts it is certainly doing something I'm not free to do.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The absurdist position breaks down when you have no need of it though. When you have reasons to live that are meaningful to you, no need to see life as absurd. Then we can (and should) have a Platonic disposition.

And the Platonic position breaks apart upon when scrutinized without veils rationalization. No need to see life in within the framework of any Grand Narrative to give the illusion of meaning. :-)

Perhaps there is a natural vacillation between feelings of nihilism and significance. It seems that the great men and women of faith had doubts at least as deep.

[vulcanlogician]

The absurdist position breaks down when you have no need of it though. When you have reasons to live that are meaningful to you, no need to see life as absurd. Then we can (and should) have a Platonic disposition.

And the Platonic position breaks apart upon when scrutinized without veils rationalization. No need to see life in within the framework of any Grand Narrative to give the illusion of meaning. :-)

Perhaps there is a natural vacillation between feelings of nihilism and significance. It seems that the great men and women of faith had doubts at least as deep.

Any human being who engages in deep thought (religious or otherwise) is going to acknowledge such vacillation.

As for Plato breaking apart... I mean, yeah. I get what you mean. But I ultimately disagree. The world of forms... his model of the soul... it doesn't survive scrutiny. Especially modern scrutiny. But I don't think those ideas were ever meant to "hold up" as a Grand Narrative.

Above the entryway to Plato's Academy stood a sign: "Let no man ignorant of geometry pass through these gates."

We want to imagine Plato as some musty old thinker with antiquated ideas, but Plato was actually an opponent of antiquated ideas. Look at modern science.

Modern science acknowledges that mathematics is the language by which we understand the universe. Plato totally understood that. 

The standard model and the four fundamental forces (another gift of modern science). These are immutable principles in nature. You don't discover these principles IN nature (as you would a rock formation or something). You discover these principles by understanding nature. By applying permanent "forms" upon what you get from natural observation. Science is just as involved in discovering "forms" as Plato was. Plato was just the first to really devote energy to the endeavour. He was clunky, got a lot of things wrong. And (what further obscures his philosophy) he is now seen through the lens of Neoplatonism. As if he "declared" his ideas as doctrines, like the Neoplatonists did. Plato did nothing of the sort.

Plato was searching for the truth. He was conducting an investigation into reality. His theory of forms was meant as an idea to be debated. That is, he put his theory out there to be criticized-- not accepted on his word. Plato was a student of Socrates. He knew better than to be a dogmatist.

When you see how much of modern science assumes Plato, he seems much less antiquated and more of a visionary.

[HappySkeptic]

When you see how much of modern science assumes Plato, he seems much less antiquated and more of a visionary.

I agree that most scientists lapse into Platonism, but I'm not sure that Platonism can be defended.  I find myself talking like a Platonist, but in reality, both science and mathematics are based on Pragmatism.

Science never reveals true forms.  We discover patterns that are useful, and create theories based on the predictive ability of those patterns.  The patterns themselves may be real, but we notice them because we find them useful.  The theories we create are never Platonically real - they are more like "stories" that happen to work a lot better than the old stories.