al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > >It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational >behaviour is quite rare. OF course there is a lot of behaviour that Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's sometimes hard to tell which is which. If your goal is to live long and avoid injury, then skiing is probably an irrational behavior with respect to that goal. If your goal is to live a physically active, exciting life, then skiing is probably rational behavior wrt that goal. If your goal is the Darwinian one of contributing as many genes as possible to the gene pool, celibacy would probably be irrational wrt that goal. If your goal is personal non-existence, then suicide is rational wrt that goal. I don't see that you can classify the goals themselves as "rational" or "irrational", though you might say "I agree with that goal" or "I disagree with that one". Rationality applies to means, not ends. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA ) ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (11/30/90)
In article <1399@gtx.com>, al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: >>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational >>behaviour is quite rare. >Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with >respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's >sometimes hard to tell which is which. Rationality includes (amongst other things) an alignment amongst different elements of experience, include an alignment between intentions and other intentions. From this perspective, I would agree with Chamove and maybe carry it even a bit farther. My view is that all people are inherently rational, if you look from the person-centered viewpoint (i.e., from the viewpoint off the person whose rationality you are considering). No one thinks or does anything that he believes to be irrational -- at the exact moment he thinks or does it. One only spots irrationality in one's own behavior and thoughts in *retrospect* (though that retrospect may be only a second or fraction of a second later). And one is lookinng at prior irrationality from a later viewpoint that one regards as rational. In my view, rationality is built into human nature; we are always being as rational as we can. We call others "irrational" when we refuse to understand the viewpoint from which we could otherwise see the rationale of their thoughts and actions. >I don't see that you can classify the goals themselves as "rational" or >"irrational", though you might say "I agree with that goal" or "I >disagree with that one". That, in fact, is the way in which "irrational" and "rational" tend to be used. But if some goals were universal and paramount in human nature, then goals that conflicted with those universal goals might justly be considered irrational, because there would inevitably be a conflict between them and the higher universal goals. I happen to think that goals like the goal to destroy others -- or even the goal to be irrational -- might be considered irrational because I believe that there is a universal and paramount tendency toward love and communion with others and toward having an orderly world. (Sort of the opposite of Original Sin -- Original Virtue?) -- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: [apple or practic or pyramid]!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 431 Burgess Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025
tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) (12/06/90)
In article <1399@gtx.com> al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: >> >>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational >>behaviour is quite rare. OF course there is a lot of behaviour that > >Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with >respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's >sometimes hard to tell which is which. I mildly disagree. Behavior can be classified as rational if the person behaving such has considered the affects of the behavior with respect to the person's goals. It is this consideration that makes the behavior rational, born of thought, rather than what the actual behavor is. IMHO, of course, Peter B