The problem is that your standard for rational desire is subjective.
There is no problem.
you confuse what makes sense objectively with what makes sense subjectively.
No, you do. I've described my epistemology to you in detail in the past.
You on the other hand are locked in some kind of epistemological tornado that has left you without any foundation for belief or knowledge. Nothing is knowable to you. Nothing is correct or incorrect. All ideas are equally valid and invalid.
I've mentioned to you that I really don't know why you say the things you do to me and others. I don't know what your point is. Are you recommending that people change the way they see it and which you disagree with to your way? I don't know, but that's certainly implied by your posting. Yet you never explain how the thinking you criticize doesn't generate valid results, or hw you recommend they process information instead and why that is to their advantage. It's the same thing I keep getting from the theists and spiritual but not religious people, who also condemn thinking like mine, but can never demonstrate how it fails or how their way of knowing is better or what its fruits are, which tells me there are none.
So the actually falsification of your theory, is that I can make subjectively different sense of being a human, yet still do the same for the objective parts of the everyday world.
My theory?
Once again, I don't know what you're telling me or why. Yes, you can process information differently. It doesn't make it as effective. As I've told you before, I see that the way you think is suboptimal. It's like you're trying to walk with one foot nailed to the floor and going in circles rather than making forward progress. You seem content with it, and therefore it is just as valid a way of thinking to you. After all, it hasn't killed you yet.
And all you do is this: Based on my subjective desire yours is irrational because it is not mine.
I haven't been discussing my desires. Nor have I said anything like that. Ideas are irrational when they are not derived from reasoning. Nonverbal ideas such as urges and apprehensions are always irrational, since they are not derived, but received from unseen neural networks.
However, thought, or the use of abstract symbols to process information to decide what is true, should always be rational.
Thus, we experience thirst not through reason, but the bare apprehension of the idea that one wants a drink. To this we apply reason and our understanding of what is true about the world to make rational decisions about how to proceed to satisfy that urge. Are we fasting for bloodwork? Then it should be water and not juice. Is the tap water safe to drink or should we get bottled water? This is the place where we want to avoid irrationality - in symbolic thought intended to maximize outcomes, in this case, satisfying thirst safely without messing up the blood test.
So, we have all kinds of appropriate irrational phenomena going through the theater of our consciousness, and they are often good and desirable. We use reason to cultivate them, to facilitate them, and to successfully anticipate and avoid the undesirable irrational experiences such as a hangover or shame.
That is where life has meaning - in the irrational experiences such as the various pains and pleasures we experience. I do not diminish the importance of irrational thought. I just exclude it from my processing those impulses such as noticing which behaviors effect which outcomes. One can think of these two as the paint and the brush, where the pigments and the portrait are experienced irrationally as something beautiful or off putting or whatever, and the brush represents the thinking faculty, which manages the pigments in an effort to paint a beautiful panorama for the consciousness, one dominated by the desirable irrational ideas such as contentment. So important are these experiences that when the anhedonia of depression is severe and prolonged enough, and the pigments from our palette have all disappeared, life loses meaning, and suicide may follow. That's how important the irrational is. Just keep it out of thought, where it does damage.
That's my "theory," by the way, and it manifested in this thread as me telling another poster that bias is only undesirable when it's irrational. When you're biased against pedophiles or bullies, your bias is rational and constructive, and if and when it informs your actions, they will be salutary. Those rational biases will make the world a better pace if you can effectively reduce pedophilia or bullying. They are rational because they were derived from considering evidence and coming to useful conclusions.
On the other hand, if your bias is irrational, such as antisemitism or atheophobia, meaning not based in evidence, your ideas will likely be wrong and often destructive. Avoiding black cats, which is irrational, probably won't harm you, but it also does nothing for you. Avoiding a vaccine if you're eligible is irrational if the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine, but rational if it were the other way around. That's my point. Bias can be good if it's derived rationally, by the successful interpretation of evidence. It's what we call learning - set of ideas about what is true about the world (hopefully; when done improperly, we add wrong ideas and mistake them for learning). Rational bias is not something to be avoided, but a desirable result of rational thought.
Now look at your words again. What? Does what you wrote represent me or what I am saying to you and others at all? Does it contain any useful ideas? It doesn't appear to. And that is what I mean by this epistemological nihilism of yours impeding your intellectual progress, and I would also dare say your happiness, since as I discussed, learning is acquiring new ways to successfully manage experience and facilitate desirable (irrational) experiences, to avoid avoidable dysphoric states such as shame and regret.
Not all ways of thinking are equally productive. Yes, you can process your world differently, and live according to whatever mental map you wind up with. And you can say that it is just as valid, using the word subjectivity a lot, but does it serve you optimally? Can you critically evaluate what you have read here, understand what is being told to you, benefit from whatever parts you agree with but hadn't considered, and specifically identify and rebut (not merely disagree or dismiss, but give a sound argument for why you believe the idea is flawed, what you would replace it with, and why) that which with you disagree. If you can, we can have a discussion with an exchange of information and ideas, one we'd both enjoy and benefit from.
This is my spiritual journey, one of learning. This is the wisdom one can acquire forsaking holy books, gurus, and navel contemplation in search of truth and meaning, and turning to one's own faculties. This is my way of seeing further, and it's based purely in the application of reason to evidence, that method decried by those choosing that other path that they claim gives them special and valuable insight, and having nothing useful to show for their efforts. I would have them consider the palette and brush metaphor in praise of reason as a tool to manage the palette of passions. That's an idea that one can actually use to facilitate reaching a higher understanding of one's self and how the mind can work to achieve the goals others seek with methods that generate nothing useful. Will you join me, or continue to give me warnings about my flawed thinking based in your epistemological nihilism that seems to do nothing for you?
I've long defined intelligence as knowing how to get what you want, and wisdom as knowing what will bring happiness, that is, knowing what to want, what will bring contentment, or the closest state to Buddhahood or nirvana possible. The answers come from careful contemplation of experience (evidence), and the proper understanding of what it tells us about the world and ourselves.
