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

[vulcanlogician]

I’m coming. I was taking some time to think about your guys’ feed back. ❤️

Take your time. I've always found it's best not to rush deep thinking. Let the reply come to you. Thinking too hard about philosophy kills more brain cells than street drugs. (I've done a side-by-side comparison.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Kierkegaard's often misunderstood leap of faith comes to mind. For me there are two existential questions that cannot be dismissed but niether can they be answered. They are as follows:

Does the universe have an intelligible order?

Is human intelligence effective?

IMHO the human condition entails forced choices to those questions. There is no truly rational option. Until very recently I felt that a tentative yes to both questions (two leaps of faith) was the only life affirming path...all other paths lead to madness or despair. Or not. I have lost much lately, including any zest for life. I use a lot of cannabis to easy the feelings of despair...I miss my friend...everything seems like bullshit because 1) there is no way to make sense of the loss...no meaning to be found...no redemming story about the pain...just emptiness. And 2) i feel so alienated and just go through the motions of the daily grind. Nothing matters anymore.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like both of those questions have immediately graspable answers. Yes, and yes.

Ill go out on a limb, and say that you subbed those questions in for some other question that you will ask as an objection to both of those having such simple and demonstrable answers. TLDR, you buried the lede. As for the above, if you believed -by faith- in those two, and lost your faith..yeah I can see you or anyone drinking yourself to death. Everythings shit, etc etc etc.

That's the trouble with believing true shit -by faith-......after all. If you get something right for the wrong or no reason - and someone (inevitably) points out that this is a wrong or no reason - poof, there goes that true and valuable item along with and only because of our own small mindedness. Next thing you know you're drowning your misery in drugs and feeling that everything is worthless and/or meaningless..apparently.

You can see how a person who doesn't believe that the answer is yes to either by faith isn't susceptible to this sort of existential angst, yes?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, the answers seem obvious, depending on one's psychological state, but that is different from saying they are rational. Vulcan's question is whether someone can be 100% rational. If the entire edifice of thought is built on a necessarrily arbitrary choice, then it isnt truly rational....at least not all the way down. We take it on faith that reasoning works and we take it on faith that reality has an intelligible order. And that is before we even start to think about religion or science.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there some specific irrationality to consider? Or is this your rejection of all thought as irrational, including..one presumes..that very thought itself?

I'm inclined to agree that if rational thought was an empty set then there would be no rational basis in thought for any particular thing. Is that how you've come to see the world? I'd be careful with the we's, in that case.

-You- once took it on faith that human intelligence was effective and reality had an intelligible order, and you've lost that faith. I guess that's the risk of attaching these things to justifications by faith? We can pick up and lose faiths regardless of the status of any fact of a matter in question. Insomuch as the loss of the one does collateral damage to an appraisal of the other - I'd say 100% rational human beings would do alot less of that.

[vulcanlogician]

Kierkegaard's often misunderstood leap of faith comes to mind. 

I actually like Kierkegaard's leap. I'm no Kierkegaard scholar or anything, but I've done some reading on it (prompted by watching "The Good Place") plus what I read --and liked-- in college. The leap "into" faith might be the best remedy for someone. I say, if the despair is taking a stranglehold, go for it. Make the leap.

As William James notes, the contingent world cannot always be adequate. (As a quasi-Spinozist and hard determinist --more on that later-- I agree with James's assessment.) Religious beliefs can MAKE the contingent world adequate. If a person is in a state of despair, I say, make the leap.

But I also think there is a wrong way to make the leap. Clutching on to religion greedily, as if it were a rabbit's foot that is there to bring one fortune, or a doctrine that affords one power over others. Those are not a leap of "faith." The worst case is a leap into fanaticism. We all know how wrongheaded that is. And oftentimes it is NOT a leap into faith in Christ that leads to fanaticism. But rather a leap into institutional delusion. Fanatics usually want to control other people with their "revelations." They externalize their religion.

I think Kierkegaard meant that after the leap of faith, the religion should be internalized, and then the "true self" becomes externalized. Kierkegaard hated institutional religion as much as any atheist. And I think that's telling. I hate institutional religion, as you well know. But if someone needs to take refuge in the Buddha or take refuge in Christ... I say do it. 

I can elaborate on my reasons why. I'm not endorsing delusion. Even though I think people who see Christ (or Allah or whatever) working in the world ARE misinterpreting the world. 

My analysis here can be quite lengthy. (Keep in mind, I'm a hard determinist. That's relevant.) The broad strokes are: 

FACT: A person can be in a state of existential anguish. I take a Spinozist (hard determinist) vantagepoint when analyzing such a situation. Spinoza would say that a despairing person has "inadequate ideas." Those ideas ought to be replaced with (surprise!) adequate ideas. "Christ" is an internal symbol that can serve as such an adequate idea. Ultimately, it has its limits as an idea. Spinoza would say there are more adequate ideas THAN it. But he would also agree... in the final analysis... that the idea of Christ is more adequate than the idea of inescapable despair. The wise person selects the most adequate idea available. Period.

But why not simply select the MOST adequate idea from the git-go? Well, it's not that simple.

According to Spinoza, we are emotional beings. We can't always just select the the most logical and accurate ideas to live by. But why not? The problem is, inadequate ideas (despair and the like) have emotional power. We are emotional beings. There is no escaping this. We need adequate ideas with some "emotion in them" in order to counteract the emotional power that the inadequate ideas have. Spinoza advises that we use them as a stepping stone of sorts to arrive finally at an outlook of pure reason. A person who is entirely reasonable, Spinoza says, is truly free.

I've gone on long enough. Like I said my analysis on this is lengthy. And I haven't even touched on how it relates to James.

[Angrboda]

FACT: A person can be in a state of existential anguish. I take a Spinozist (hard determinist) vantagepoint when analyzing such a situation. Spinoza would say that a despairing person has "inadequate ideas." Those ideas ought to be replaced with (surprise!) adequate ideas. "Christ" is an internal symbol that can serve as such an adequate idea. Ultimately, it has its limits as an idea. Spinoza would say there are more adequate ideas THAN it. But he would also agree... in the final analysis... that the idea of Christ is more adequate than the idea of inescapable despair. The wise person selects the most adequate idea available. Period.

I'm reminded of the maxim in mental health counseling that a crisis is when a person does not believe themselves capable of managing their current situation. It's less a question of things being out of control than it is of one not believing that one has sufficient control over things to manage the situation. That's very similar in that the goal is not to change the situation but change one's beliefs about the situation. Just spitballing, but it does open up the possibility that such crises are created by the same forces which can resolve them, that perhaps choosing inadequate ideas can lead to the need for such a leap of faith. That also makes sense of the intuition that people who are poor in resources, less mentally capable, or in difficult circumstances are more prone to seeing such leaps as advantageous. It is much easier to grab hold of the idea that one's life is beyond their ability to manage if there is an impoverishment of resources in general. A person who is depressed and sees no hope is prime for such a leap.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is there some specific irrationality to consider?  Or is this your rejection of all thought as irrational, including..one presumes..that very thought itself?...Is that how you've come to see the world?

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

-You- once took it on faith that human intelligence was effective and reality had an intelligible order, and you've lost that faith.  I guess that's the risk of attaching these things to justifications by faith?  

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".

[Neo-Scholastic]

FACT: A person can be in a state of existential anguish. I take a Spinozist (hard determinist) vantagepoint when analyzing such a situation. Spinoza would say that a despairing person has "inadequate ideas." Those ideas ought to be replaced with (surprise!) adequate ideas. "Christ" is an internal symbol that can serve as such an adequate idea. Ultimately, it has its limits as an idea. Spinoza would say there are more adequate ideas THAN it. But he would also agree... in the final analysis... that the idea of Christ is more adequate than the idea of inescapable despair. The wise person selects the most adequate idea available. Period.

...the goal is not to change the situation but change one's beliefs about the situation....A person who is depressed and sees no hope is prime for such a leap.

My point is that there are no intellectual moves that do not entail some "leap of faith". The depressed person takes leaps one way, the confident person another. Each choice is emotionally motivated but intellectually arbitrary. The funny thing is, I wrote a lot of words trying to convince you that a tentative acceptance of the Principle of Non-Contradiction was warranted. Whereas, you were the one claiming that the liar's paradox qualified as a defeater against logical absolutes. At least that's how I understood you at the time. And intellectually, I can imagine how we could both be kind of right.

[Ahriman]

Most people seem pretty rational. I think what the world really needs, more than rationality, is irrationality. The latter is the source of greater creativity, as well as the most important prerequisite for thinking outside the box.