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

[vulcanlogician]

I know I’m kind of going off the deep end here, and I apologize in advance if I’m starting to exasperate anyone. That’s not my intent. When we talk about objects like the Golden Gate Bridge, we’re talking about the value of a thing (whether it’s functional, aesthetic, practical value, etc), in the world for us, or to us, as the experiencers. But what is the value of a live conscious experience itself, if it’s finite and we know that? What can we point to beyond whatever evolutionary advantages consciousness may imbue us with as an instinctual means for species survival?

No. You're fine. It's refreshing to talk to someone who doesn't accept platitudes... and treats arguments (like my Golden Gate Bridge argument) with the skepticism they deserve.

Also, someone with "forCamus" in their handle would be expected to keep pointing out life's absurdity and how much of an insoluble problem life's absurdity really is.

I obviously like the route that Plato and a great many other philosophers take. They realize a metaphysical structure in reality (or higher truth), conclude that such a structure is "good" (because it solves many of life's issues) and go around arguing that we ought to pay attention to these structures and -- for better or worse-- impose them on our lives and use them to generate meaning.

I think Camus (and also Emil Cioran) have some excellent criticisms of this methodology. At some point, it just doesn't work. Life is absurd and meaningless, and it is false to try to impose something like Platonic structures on it.

As a philosopher, I like to stand back and look at the entire continuum of thinking. There looms above the abyss, the question--- "WHY?" --- It branches off in two direction. Two answers. 1) "There is goodness and truth in it."--- 2) It is nothing but absurdity. Any truth in it is fleeting.

In one direction (answer 2), you have Camus and other thinkers who stress the error that comes along with answering such a question "why"... pointing out how any "answer" is going to be false right out of the gate. In the other direction there are thinkers like Plato who posit that there is value in trying different answers to that question. Plato says, there ARE answers that you could entertain and try to support. It isn't easy, says Plato, but it can be done because (as confusing and deceptive as the world is) you CAN find truth if you look for it.

I think the whole continuum of thought about the question "Why?" is immensely valuable. Camus's criticisms protect us from error and show the limits of any potential answer produced for why... while Plato urges us to find the good in life, understand it and try to work with it "the unexamined life is not worth living."

I think there is value in both approaches. They both put the question "why?" right in your face and force you to choose a direction.