is succinct reasoning and rational debate a myth?

in posting on this forum, as well as interacting with human beings through literature, television and personal conversation i'm beginning to have a crisis of reason.

do rational arguments and opinions based on logic even exist? do we have any overwhelming evidence for reason actually taking place in our lives? or is this mythical dream of people actually thinking critically about what they say just an illusion we subscribe to, because it makes us feel better? i've tried to live my life as a rational human for most of my life, but do we have any reason that this sort of thing is based in reality, or is just the lie we tell ourselves to inspire hope and security in a world of chaotic ignorance?

i recognize that there is part of me that really wants such a thing to exist, but i'm getting the feeling that all of this is just wishful thinking. something we tell ourselves to believe the world will, one day, become a more rational a logic-based place.

and this is what i'd like to get in to.

yourhopeboundheart said:

in posting on this forum, as well as interacting with human beings through literature, television and personal conversation i'm beginning to have a crisis of reason.

do rational arguments and opinions based on logic even exist? do we have any overwhelming evidence for reason actually taking place in our lives? or is this mythical dream of people actually thinking critically about what they say just an illusion we subscribe to, because it makes us feel better? i've tried to live my life as a rational human for most of my life, but do we have any reason that this sort of thing is based in reality, or is just the lie we tell ourselves to inspire hope and security in a world of chaotic ignorance?

i recognize that there is part of me that really wants such a thing to exist, but i'm getting the feeling that all of this is just wishful thinking. something we tell ourselves to believe the world will, one day, become a more rational a logic-based place.

and this is what i'd like to get in to.

Click to expand...

I think I'm always the most rational thinking one in the group.

I'm only half-joking when I say that. Don't we all (including you in the OP) think that about ourselves. The universe is mysterious and I think we all are learning.

Calling this a world of 'chaotic ignorance' is too negative, too pessimistic and not a rational view to me.

Hope and security are both rational goals. This demonstrates that even if the universe itself is an irrational place, that we inside of it are in fact rational. Our small corner of reality that we are able to control slowly but surely becomes more rational by our design. If we are just pretending to be rational, we are making reality pretend right along with us.

Why would you want human civilization to be a more rational, logic-based place? What would that mean and what would it look like?

Think about the Vulcans from Star Trek, if you're familiar. I realize reason and logic are enshrined in our post-enlightenment culture, but the fact remains humans are not Vulcans. We are creatures of feeling and emotion. Our reasons for behavior are grounded in emotions more often than they are not. Instead of fighting against this and suggesting that human civilization "progress" to the Vulcan state of being, why not reasonably embrace ourselves for what we are?

I think most of us are irrational to one degree or another. Some more often than others. That said, I think if you wish to be as rational as possible for you, you do it for yourself and not expect society to follow.

What is irrational? As I've thought about that term over the years, I tend to come to the conclusion that the only difference between "rational" and "irrational" is one's own personal agreement or disagreement with the reasons behind something.

They are just elusive goals, sometimes achieved.

Quintessence said:

What is irrational? As I've thought about that term over the years, I tend to come to the conclusion that the only difference between "rational" and "irrational" is one's own personal agreement or disagreement with the reasons behind something.

Click to expand...

Would you be willing to say, then, that logic was merely a matter of one's perspective? That it is equally rational to say 1 + 1 = 2 as it is to say it equals 3?

My logic took me from point A to B. However, there are other possibilities and by a different logic I could have gone from A to C,D,F..etc. Therefore, I think one shouldn't place so much rigidity on his position, criteria and modes of thinking. Best to treat everything you hold to as being the most probable from numerous possibilities and therefore most likely to be true from your point of view, though it might be wrong.

Sunstone said:

Would you be willing to say, then, that logic was merely a matter of one's perspective? That it is equally rational to say 1 + 1 = 2 as it is to say it equals 3?

Click to expand...

1 human + 1 human = 3 humans. Sometimes 4 or 5 even. In the case of octomom, 10 humans. Math is manipulation.

Sir Doom said:

1 human + 1 human = 3 humans. Sometimes 4 or 5 even. In the case of octomom, 10 humans. Math is manipulation.

Click to expand...

Lol, that is quite true. :bow:

yourhopeboundheart said:

in posting on this forum, as well as interacting with human beings through literature, television and personal conversation i'm beginning to have a crisis of reason.

do rational arguments and opinions based on logic even exist? do we have any overwhelming evidence for reason actually taking place in our lives? or is this mythical dream of people actually thinking critically about what they say just an illusion we subscribe to, because it makes us feel better? i've tried to live my life as a rational human for most of my life, but do we have any reason that this sort of thing is based in reality, or is just the lie we tell ourselves to inspire hope and security in a world of chaotic ignorance?

i recognize that there is part of me that really wants such a thing to exist, but i'm getting the feeling that all of this is just wishful thinking. something we tell ourselves to believe the world will, one day, become a more rational a logic-based place.

and this is what i'd like to get in to.

Click to expand...

The fact that humanity has had the power to annihilate all life on this planet through nuclear armageddon for the past half century or so, and hasn't, shows a good measure of rationality. I hope this trend continues.

JustWondering said:

The fact that humanity has had the power to annihilate all life on this planet through nuclear armageddon for the past half century or so, and hasn't, shows a good measure of rationality. I hope this trend continues.

Click to expand...

To be quite honest... I kind of want to see a limited armegeddon where... say 500 million survive. Would be great to weed out the weak en masse, as the last amounts would rapidly kill each other in the war that broke out, and only the must cunning and intelligent living. Eventually order would come out of this dust, and we would emerge stronger. Oh, but we will need to preserve as much data as we can to prevent another dark age knowledge wise. But only the elite will get that information in the post-apocalyptic Satanic theocracy I want to rule with an iron fist in this scenario.

jasonwill2 said:

To be quite honest... I kind of want to see a limited armegeddon where... say 500 million survive. Would be great to weed out the weak en masse, as the last amounts would rapidly kill each other in the war that broke out, and only the must cunning and intelligent living. Eventually order would come out of this dust, and we would emerge stronger. Oh, but we will need to preserve as much data as we can to prevent another dark age knowledge wise. But only the elite will get that information in the post-apocalyptic Satanic theocracy I want to rule with an iron fist in this scenario.

Click to expand...

The genetically and cybernetically enhanced will be the next elite. An apocalypse is not necessary for our continued evolution into something greater.

JustWondering said:

The genetically and cybernetically enhanced will be the next elite. An apocalypse is not necessary for our continued evolution into something greater.

Click to expand...

What happens when something shorts out their cybernetics?

Did you know that atomic blasts have the side effect of a huge EMP burst?

And yes, massive death is necessary for the advancement of our species.

jasonwill2 said:

And yes, massive death is necessary for the advancement of our species.

Click to expand...

Thats debatable.

JustWondering said:

Thats debatable.

Click to expand...

No it's not and let me clarify:

Human kind is always progressing as evolution is always active with each new human born. For a human to live, they need to consume other forms of life, animals and plants, to survive. Let's not even get into the trees and other things killed for our resources.

Hence, many things die for one human. Multiply this by billions of people and we have massive death EVERY DAY for the entire species. Hence to move forward, some form of life must die en masse for us to simply survive, much more so (mostly as collateral but sometimes directly) to gain resources to develop more fully.

i kinda tried to let this thread sorta go where it needed to -and then we started talking about Armageddon and cybernetics. so i now return.

i also sorta hoped someone would understand the satirical nature of my post, but perhaps the parallels weren't effective enough.

what i was serious about though, is that we have the skills and tools to have discourse that isn't all attacking and defending, and more mutually guiding toward agreed upon truths. we have ways of holding one another accountable for keeping within the boundaries of intelligent conversation.

to those who ask why more logic would be better than less logic: increasing in civility and effective communication can only allow our emotional sides more opportunity to bloom to their brightest potential. think of it this way, there are norms and laws that prevent people from simply acting on every instinct or emotion that they come across - why should that stop when we're listening to a presidential candidate, or a friend, or a news reporter, or someone on RF. we've collectively decided on certain rules that apply critical thinking to our conversations, but since everyone is so fond of breaking the rules, people are chastised for even mentioning or enforcing them.

but whatever, carry on.