Quote:

---

BleaK said:
i dont think that i think of rationality as an end.
in fact my troubles come from trying to use it as a means.
it continually fails miserably.

---

Maybe you're just not very good at it.

Quote:

---

BleaK said:
rationality is either a sick joke, or a huuuge mistake.
if life has a meaning and no one told me, its a sick fucking joke.
if it doesnt, then having rationality is a huuuuge mistake.
im tired.

---

Would it still be, if you play the joke on yourself?

Quote:

---

When one's ethical premises are structured on a malevolent or contradictory base, one's actions will naturally be detrimental to oneself or others. This is because an action based on a belief or premise in a particular cause-effect relationship will not occur if that relationship is invalid or contradictory.
Likewise, when one's ethical premises are structured on a benevolent and consistent base, one's actions will naturally be harmonious to oneself and others. This is because an action based on a premise in a particular cause-effect relationship will occur when that relationship is valid or congruent with nature.

---

BAM!

You just captured there the essence of what I was breaking it down too. The thing is, who doesn't rationalize most of the time. We'd be dead or in jail if we didn't.

Yes, it is vital for our survival. Thats a given to me.

I think what needs more emphasise is not how to rationalize but an examination of the core ethics one reasons with.

Like I said, I can legitimately rationalize some pretty heinous destructive acts just on the dictionary definition of the word rational alone.

It itself is not the key to anything aspiring. But of course, with an aspiring ethical base seeking common good will for all, then rational just naturally follows, just as it would naturally follow the thinking processes of one who aspired world domination through oppression.

Until someone contributes the grounding ethics of one rational, rational itself doesn't mean much.

Sometimes I think the word itself gets gold plated. That can be a danger in disguise. If people get all caught up in beleiving that rational thinking is always the correct way to think, they may start to loose sight of what its being applied to. If so they may use logic to follow that believing "if something can be rationalized then it must be ethically correct or justified action to take." Thats not always the case. Sometimes it is.

I'm just raising awareness in general for people to think more deeply on such things. The ethics rationalization is being applied to is important.

I would rather see humans irrationally or non rationally marrying  toads believing they are soul mates then someone using rationality based on a different code of ethics from mine to plan and justify an attack like 9/11.

In short, the words rational and irrational alone don't mean much until you learn the nature of the acts the thought processes are being applied too. I hope I am being understood correctly. 

Quote:

---

BlueCoyote said:
There are numerous possible reasons who can be argued from with rationality. Some reasons even are contradictious. But I think that has been said before.

---

It has also already been stated that, if such contradictions exist, then, within the bounds of rationality, there is an error, which is to state, of course, that one is irrational.

Rationality and consistency seem to go hand-in-hand.


Peace.

Quote:

---

It has also already been stated that, if such contradictions exist, then, within the bounds of rationality, there is an error, which is to state, of course, that one is irrational.

Rationality and consistency seem to go hand-in-hand.

---

That thinking can lead to the same potential problem of "believing you are in the correct way of being as long as you are not contradicting yourself and being consistent".

It's not to say that repetition does not hold true time after time. It does. So what?  It's saying that what is not allowed to change can not further develop or evolve itself.

People who live within non contradiction and consistency live like a broken record never allowing themselves to move on to new methods or perspectives. In some cases that may be a good thing and in some, it may not.

You ain't nothing but a hound dog *skip
You ain't nothing but a hound dog *skip
You ain't nothing but a hound dog *skip
You ain't nothing but a hound dog *skip
You ain't nothing but a hound dog *skip

No contradictions there and total consistency. The skip allows for complete predictability in the lyrics to come.

What if car makers stayed consistent in their methods since the first model was made? No progress. Was it irrational or in error for them to break with consistency and install DVD players when a new option to add came into play?

Look at the process of maturing. As a child you are told by adults not to question authority and to do as you are told.

Later on, adults start telling you to question authority. Because it is contrary to what you first learned, does that make it an irrational thing in error of you to do in your adult life?

Say you own a restaurant and your business is a success because of your secret recipe apple pie. It is vital that your chefs consistently follow the recipe to produce the same product the customers expect to get. Here-consistency of that philosophy serves your business goals well to make money.

Say a Joe Blow opens a restaurant across the street. He makes his apple pie Lo cal. You're philosophy has always been that your pie is to perfect to ever modify.

Your customers are concerned about getting fat from eating all that pie so they start going to Joe Blows and you start loosing revenue.

Is it rational for you to keep consistent in your philosophy just to remain "correct" in your thinking and go out of business?

Would it be in error for you to modify the recipe making the pie you sell Lo Cal?

There are many examples in life where the rational thing to do is to break from consistency and contradict yourself if you are going to grow, survive and thrive.

Rationality and consistency may seem to go hand in hand and keep you from amking an error, yet in reality, they don't always nor should they where growth is taking place.

We all live in a yellow submarine *skip
We all live in a yellow submarine *skip
We all live in a yellow submarine *skip
We all live in a yellow submarine *skip
We all live in a yellow submarine *skip

Quote:

---

gettinjiggywithit said:
That thinking can lead to the same potential problem of "believing you are in the correct way of being as long as you are not contradicting yourself and being consistent".

---

Take it further from what it is to any place that you wish, but I don't see what this has to do with rationality or its relationship with consistency.

Quote:

---

It's not to say that repetition does not hold true time after time. It does. So what?  It's saying that what is not allowed to change can not further develop or evolve itself.

---

Quote:

---

People who live within non contradiction and consistency live like a broken record never allowing themselves to move on to new methods or perspectives. In some cases that may be a good thing and in some, it may not.

---

Quote:

---

What if car makers stayed consistent in their methods since the first model was made? No progress.

---

Quote:

---

Was it irrational or in error for them to break with consistency and install DVD players when a new option to add came into play?

---

Rationality is a system of thought. Consistency is in regards to the fact that one does not hold opposing thoughts or lines of logic that negate or contradict each other. It has nothing to do with eternally concrete thoughts.

Quote:

---

Look at the process of maturing. As a child you are told by adults not to question authority and to do as you are told.

---

Quote:

---

Later on, adults start telling you to question authority. Because it is contrary to what you first learned, does that make it an irrational thing in error of you to do in your adult life?

---

Quote:

---

Is it rational for you to keep consistent in your philosophy just to remain "correct" in your thinking and go out of business?

---

Maybe it is rational, maybe it is not, as it lies dependant on your system of rationality. That which is being discussed is consistency in application of the laws of logic, as mushman has stated. Your topic that you have created would perhaps be better off in a new thread, since it does not relate at all to this discussion, beyond the fact that you are using some of the same words.

Quote:

---

Would it be in error for you to modify the recipe making the pie you sell Lo Cal?

---

Quote:

---

There are many examples in life where the rational thing to do is to break from consistency and contradict yourself if you are going to grow, survive and thrive.

---

Quote:

---

Rationality and consistency may seem to go hand in hand and keep you from amking an error, yet in reality, they don't always nor should they where growth is taking place.

---

Perhaps if you would not blur two entirely different subjects simply because both employ the same word, you would not come to such baseless conclusions.


Peace.

Quote:

---

MushmanTheManic saidth:
Our primary ideas about the universe appear to be made up of contingent truths (logically, they can be either true or false), and rationalism alone cannot help us verify or refute them. For example, its logically possible for me to be bald, with rationalism, we can rule out the possibility that I am bald and not-bald, but whether I am actually bald or not, logic cannot decide.

---