trc@houca.UUCP (10/25/83)
Response to stan the l.h. I think you asked several questions - 1) what is rationality; 2) how is it different from rationalization; 3) why is your scenario not a proper presentation of an "Objectivist mode of reasoning". The second is easiest - rationalization is the act of perverting one's reason to the defense of a rationally incorrect decision, via the selective evasion of reality. The minimum evasion is the evasion of the need to use rationality *before* a decision is made, when possible. And then there are additional evasions required, (depending upon how incorrect the decision is) of the context of the decision and how it was made. Rand defines reason as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It is a faculty that man has to exercise *by choice*. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality - or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make." My understanding of rationality, which I think agrees with the above is: Reason is the faculty that allows humans to create, hold, and manipulate concepts that represent things, and which is capable of representing *real* things. Rationality is the state or process of using that faculty *fully* to accept (hold) and use concepts that represent things in reality. Reason can be "misused" in the sense that one can fail to apply it fully to what one knows, or can apply it with improper premises (based on something that one does *not* know - a known falsehood, fabrication, or irrationally derived concept [latter is recursive, not circular]). That is "irrationality". Your third question seems to require a lot more than an understanding of rationality to answer, though the use of rationality in considering the context you give would indeed lead one (eventually - one has to get into ethics first) to reject the use of force against humans as a means of attempting to gain values. (Force is justified in order to *retain* values that another is trying to use force to take away from you.) The "vulgar masses" are human, even if some of them have given up the *use* of the mental capabilities that distinguish a humans from animals. And in fact, I do not agree that the "masses" have given up the use of reason - they merely do not apply it consistently across their lives. They may apply it to solving problems like finding a new store, but refuse to put out the effort to apply it to the (more difficult) task of understanding themselves or ethical questions. Also, as I have indicated in other notes, most of the "masses" pay lip service to altruism, while acting common-sensically selfish most of the time. This leads to numerous conflicts, in that they "double-think" - expecting others to live by an altruistic code, while each really acts semi-properly selfish. Because of this expectation on others, they may try to *take* the values that they believe that the other *should* altruistically give them. This either doesnt work, or causes huge resentment, or both. Either way, it messes up lives. By the way - I believe that you have mis-interpreted my "Taggart" note. Dagney was not justified in shooting the man merely because of his irrationality. For example, Dagney would not be justified in deliberately shooting an innocent-but-irrational bystander. It was the combination of the man's opposition to a just cause, combined with his refusal to even think and choose whether he should submit to force to save his life - let alone consider whether the cause behind the force was just. Tom Craver houca!trc
gandalf@hogpd.UUCP (10/25/83)
Tom's definition of rationality is still not operational enough to work
with, and does not resolve the problem of conflicting rationalities.
For example, the people of Flakeville, Vt. write Mr. Rational, complaining
that his steel plant in PA is causing acid rain in their area and to do
something about it. Mr. Rational asks his scientists to investigate and
they find no evidence to support Flakeville's claims. Flakville then asks
the Fed. Gov. to investigate, and their scientists find conclusive evidence
(by their standards) that Mr. Rational is causing acid rain and severe damage
in Flakeville. Mr. R says the Gov. scientists are incompetent and will only
trust the word of his people or those of his friend Ms. Alsorational. The
people of Flakeville and the Gov. say that Mr. R's and Ms. A's scientists
are incompetent and biased and will only listen to scientists living in
Flakeville or working for the Gov.
Now the Gov. thinks Mr. R is being irrational and slaps an injunction on him.
Mr. R thinks they are being irrational and refuses change production.
Ok, does the Gov. have the right to call in the Army and force Mr. R. to
change his ways (after all he is taking something from the people of Flakeville
and he is being irrational) ? Does Mr. R. have the right to build tanks and
fight back against the Gov. (After all they are trying to take something
away from him and they are being irrational)?
(I am trying to make the point that people always think that THEY are the
one being rational. The question is then when is force used and by whom
to settle conflicting rationalities. I personally believe in Rand's
values, but don't see how one could run a society based on them.)
(This example is meant to deal with rationality not with externalities
and pollution. Assume Mr. R. do something if he thought he was causing
acid rain. Please keep my main point in mind, and don't get lost
in my example.)
Monty Estis
hogpd!gandalflaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/26/83)
Response to Tom Craver's response to STLH (Stanley Shebs): First you define rationalise: This is a useful definition and elaboration (although it is useful to remember that this is not the only definition of rationalisation -- my OED says rationalise: Explain (away) by rationalism, bring into conformity with reason; (Math.) clear of surds; make (an industry) more efficient by scientifically reducing or eliminating waste of labour, time or materials. Be or act as a rationalist; (colloq.) find `reasons' for irrational or unworthy behavior. rationalism: Practice of explaining te supernatural in religion in a way consonant with reason, or of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion as in elsewhere; the theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism sensationalism) Which leads me to believe that you think that rationalisation is a very good thing. Unfortunately, the pop psychology and coloquial definition seems to be so widely known that the original meaning has become at the least obscured and perhaps contaminated. But after accpeting your definition, I am still in a lot of trouble since there is no way that I can determine whether I am being rational or whether I am rationalising. if I cannot tell the difference then chaos should ensue. Also there are strains of the "if everyone were rational there would be no disagreements" belief. I still do not know where the basis for this belief comes from. What guarantee do you have that 2 perfectly rational people will not disagree? And as for: Reason is the faculty that allows humans to create, hold, and manipulate concepts that represent things and which is capable of representing *real* things. Rationality is the state or process of using that faculty *fully* to accept (hold) and use concepts that represent things in reality. Did you know that you have just condemned all the works of Hume, Locke, and the other Empiricists as being irrational? And that you have done the same for most Eastern thought? Is this, therefore, a useful definition? It was the combination of the man's opposition to a just cause, combined with his refusal to even think and choose whether he should submit to force to save his life - let alone consider whether the cause behind the force was just. Hmm. This asumes that Dagney must be able to judge that the cause was just, and that the man was refusing to think. What if Dagney was wrong? How can Dagney be assured that she is not making a terrible mistake? What if the man was thinking, but very, very slowly. What if he was thinking but not commenting on his thinking or letting her know that he was thinking. What if he had thought for hours the night before and decided that he was perfectly rational and thus any opposition he met was based on somebody else behaving irrationally? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/26/83)
It seems to me that anyone who claims to be consistently rational is thereby proclaiming their irrationality. Martin Taylor