Let's be Reasonable, Y'all

[Received]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

 

[Washington]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God).

Interesting that you can manage this significant insight in "quite a few chaps."

I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Okay.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Not presuming that happiness is dependent on not being "reasonable, rational, and/or logical," it all pretty much comes down to what melts your butter. The religious find it important to believe regardless of how illogical it may be---although I doubt many find it illogical---whereas the non-religious find it important to be logical regardless of what kind of claimed comfort may be derived from religious belief.

 

[Chesterton]

The most important thing is to be right.

But...

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

...disallowing the real right answer doesn't make for a good thread.

 

[Received]

Not presuming that happiness is dependent on not being "reasonable, rational, and/or logical," it all pretty much comes down to what melts your butter. The religious find it important to believe regardless of how illogical it may be---although I doubt many find it illogical---whereas the non-religious find it important to be logical regardless of what kind of claimed comfort may be derived from religious belief.

Well, that's obviously not a rule; religious people can be solidly logical (logic doesn't tend to ascertainable truth, per se, but works through validity of premises, which are assumptions), and nonreligious people can be very much illogical (I'm thinking of self-defeating beliefs, like scientism).

But what "melts your butter" has gots to be unpacked. Do you mean "what makes you happy," or what?

 

[Received]

The most important thing is to be right.

To be right isn't really the limitation given subjectivity; much better to say, the most important thing is to think you're right. But I'll assume that thinking oneself is right lines up with actuality. But still, you'd rather be right than be happy?

The point I'm trying to make, I suppose, is that there's no point in calling "being right" good given that good implies a standard related to happiness; and that if this is so, what we should aim for first is being happy, even if this involves accepting claims that could be false (but we don't know them to be), and attend to things like reason and knowledge of oneself being right second. I'm open to alternate views, of course.

 

[Washington]

Well, that's obviously not a rule; religious people can be solidly logical (logic doesn't tend to ascertainable truth, per se, but works through validity of premises, which are assumptions), and nonreligious people can be very much illogical (I'm thinking of self-defeating beliefs, like scientism).

Hey, you're the one who set up the dichotomy using the term "logic," not me: "happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical." I simply chose to use the term as a single identifier for all three of your operationals.

But what "melts your butter" has gots to be unpacked. Do you mean "what makes you happy," or what?

Pretty much. It means, whatever works for you.

 

[Bushido216]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

Important to what? Why should we care? Neither? Does it matter?

 

[Received]

It can be stated otherwise. Which is the greater value: our attempt to be happy, or our attempt to be right (which can mean epistemically on par, rational, reasonable, logical, or whatever else you'd fill the hole with)?

There's nothing supernatural in this question. There are some people who prefer sticking to what they believe they can know (with relative certainty) even if they tend to be rather unhappy individuals, and there are some people who prefer sticking to what makes them happy, even if in the process some beliefs are held that are far from certainty.

Yes, Bushido, it matters a great deal. Values can be transmitted -- precious memes they are. It's important to know which values come closest to their goal: happiness.

 

[Bushido216]

The point I'm trying to make is that this question is so broad as to be interesting but unimportant. Are you suggesting that there is a universal value we must hew towards (and we're trying to figure out which it is). Is it possible one thing can be more valuable to one person but not to another?

"What has more value" has a lot of unanswered questions about what exactly you're trying to make progress towards with the question.

If the question is, there's a universal, what is it? My answer is "probably, but we don't know, and probably wouldn't know how to tell if we did, so until then just do whatever you want in that regard."

If the question is, can value be different person to person, my answer is "yes, so let them do whatever they want".

 

[Received]

Well, you know, there is a universal basis of value, or else value wouldn't be understandable in conversation; this basis is happiness. Happiness is why we should value things, although often we swallow the memes of our predecessors and hold dear what could potentially be poison for ourselves -- or at the very least unfitting for our particular personalities.

But there is no universal value. Well, there could be, but that's not my point. I'm looking at comparing the search for truth (within rational and/or logical bounds) with the search for happiness. That is, should a value for truth be more important than happiness? Given that the basis of our values is happiness, this question is answered with a "yes" only irrationally. Holding to a value of rationality as an alternative to being happy is irrational. The whole point, I'm trying to say, is that you can't get along saying that rationality/logicality/veracity is more important than happiness without shooting yourself in the foot. You can rearrange this generally by saying you can't get along saying that a value, which aims for happiness by definition, is more important than what it aims for.

 

[InkBlott]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

Are you asserting a cause and effect connection between theism and happiness? If so, how have you determined this? I know some happy non-theists and some rather miserable theists.

Also, does theism automatically lead to a sense of existential purpose? Is that necessarily a desired result?

 

[Received]

There is no necessary connection between theism and happiness or existential meaning (I also know some pretty unhappy, even miserable, nontheists, and some very happy atheists), although part of my point is that there could be in a particular situation. You can replace theism with taking up skiing or Judo, if you'd like.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is no necessary connection between theism and happiness or existential meaning (I also know some pretty unhappy, even miserable, nontheists, and some very happy atheists), although part of my point is that there could be in a particular situation. You can replace theism with taking up skiing or Judo, if you'd like.

If there is no correlation between two things, then a person could have both, or one, or the other, or neither. So a person could be a happy theist, an unhappy theist, a happy atheist, or an unhappy atheist. Those are the four possibilities, and none of them are impossible.

 

[Penumbra]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

Well, first of all, as you pointed out- both can sometimes be possible. That aside...

If I had to choose strictly one or the other, I would choose reason over happiness. If you've ever seen the movie The Matrix, I view it kind of like how some of the crew members did. The Matrix is a reasonably ok virtual reality that people live in and have no idea they live there, whereas the real world is a barren, cold, destroyed place. Some of the crew members argue whether it's really better to be "freed" from the prison of the Matrix if it means they are stuck in a rather crappy real world. I would choose to be freed from the Matrix even if it meant that the real world was a worse place.

I would also argue that it's not usually a choice, but instead just happens one way or another. Some people are more pre-disposed to be logical, and can't help but to view everything in a critical way. Once a myth is dispelled, even if it was pleasant, it is virtually impossible to return to.

-Lyn

 

[Received]

If there is no correlation between two things, then a person could have both, or one, or the other, or neither. So a person could be a happy theist, an unhappy theist, a happy atheist, or an unhappy atheist. Those are the four possibilities, and none of them are impossible.

Indeed.

 

[Received]

Well, first of all, as you pointed out- both can sometimes be possible. That aside...

If I had to choose strictly one or the other, I would choose reason over happiness. If you've ever seen the movie The Matrix, I view it kind of like how some of the crew members did. The Matrix is a reasonably ok virtual reality that people live in and have no idea they live there, whereas the real world is a barren, cold, destroyed place. Some of the crew members argue whether it's really better to be "freed" from the prison of the Matrix if it means they are stuck in a rather crappy real world. I would choose to be freed from the Matrix even if it meant that the real world was a worse place.

I would also argue that it's not usually a choice, but instead just happens one way or another. Some people are more pre-disposed to be logical, and can't help but to view everything in a critical way. Once a myth is dispelled, even if it was pleasant, it is virtually impossible to return to.

-Lyn

The Matrix is a pretty good example. The problem with using the comparison is that people look at Cypher and they're like, "omigash, he's such an evil guy, man, and he doesn't prefer reality," and they look at Neo are like, "omigash, Neo has this self-inclination towards finding the truth, and he's miserable without it man, a splinter in his mind, you know" (love the Matrix, but it does attract a lot of annoying pseudophilosophical people).

To clarify (without sarcasm): Neo prefers the real world because he is inexorably unhappy with the false world of the Matrix. That is, he's more happy with the truth (even though it's initially quite distressing); the other members of the crew (and in Zion) have the goal of restoring the rest of the human race (in the Matrix) to the real world, which would presumably result in a restored Earth -- not sure, but that seems the implication to me: everyone's freed, the machines have no more "fuel", they die, and things are back to where they were before the Matrix. In both the cases of Neo (in getting out of the Matrix) and the people of Zion (and the crew), the reason for escaping the Matrix is related to a quest for happiness. That means they aren't choosing reason/knowledge/the truth/logic/whatever at the expense of happiness in the long run. It's even questionable that they're choosing to sacrifice happiness in the short run: the real world is an ugly, unattractive place (as you point out), but they all seem to share the same inward drive to realization that Neo also shares -- which means they can't be happy in the fake world of the Matrix, and even happier in the real world, although they obviously have lost many of the pluses of the Matrix (wealth, chicks, pretty sunshiny days, good food, etc.).

The point: the Matrix is an example of knowing the truth and happiness lining up, and so it isn't really an example of the dichotomy I'm pointing out in the OP. A good example I have in mind is, well, take a look at talkrational.org or philosophyforums.com -- pervaded with very, very smart people who in many cases tend to be irritable, sarcastic, many times humorless, cold, careless, etc. They live a life that reflects a preference for reason at the expense of happiness (in that they aren't inclined to seek happiness in as many ways as possible, similar to their obvious preference for being "right").

 

[Penumbra]

The Matrix is a pretty good example. The problem with using the comparison is that people look at Cypher and they're like, "omigash, he's such an evil guy, man, and he doesn't prefer reality," and they look at Neo are like, "omigash, Neo has this self-inclination towards finding the truth, and he's miserable without it man, a splinter in his mind, you know" (love the Matrix, but it does attract a lot of annoying pseudophilosophical people).

Well, I only dislike Cypher's character because he's willing to kill his friends for his own perceived benefit, and is even happy to do so in the case of Morpheus. (Well, "dislike" is perhaps the wrong word, as I think his character is an amazing antagonist, is well acted, and is one of the reasons that the first Matrix was many steps above the two sequels.)

To clarify (without sarcasm): Neo prefers the real world because he is inexorably unhappy with the false world of the Matrix. That is, he's more happy with the truth (even though it's initially quite distressing); the other members of the crew (and in Zion) have the goal of restoring the rest of the human race (in the Matrix) to the real world, which would presumably result in a restored Earth -- not sure, but that seems the implication to me: everyone's freed, the machines have no more "fuel", they die, and things are back to where they were before the Matrix. In both the cases of Neo (in getting out of the Matrix) and the people of Zion (and the crew), the reason for escaping the Matrix is related to a quest for happiness. That means they aren't choosing reason/knowledge/the truth/logic/whatever at the expense of happiness in the long run. It's even questionable that they're choosing to sacrifice happiness in the short run: the real world is an ugly, unattractive place (as you point out), but they all seem to share the same inward drive to realization that Neo also shares -- which means they can't be happy in the fake world of the Matrix, and even happier in the real world, although they obviously have lost many of the pluses of the Matrix (wealth, chicks, pretty sunshiny days, good food, etc.).

The point: the Matrix is an example of knowing the truth and happiness lining up, and so it isn't really an example of the dichotomy I'm pointing out in the OP.

I agree with the first part about some people (Neo as an example) being more happy with the truth. I think various people are wired differently, and people differ in the importance they place on truth or accuracy.

I disagree with the second part about the characters choosing initial unhappiness for happiness in the long run. The earth is in such a desolate state that it would not be "fixed" in their lifetime even if they were to win the war. They live in a hole in the ground, as the entire surface is unsustainable. Even without the robot rule, they will have generations of work to do to get back to some reasonable state of comfort and pleasure. The generation that is alive now and is fighting so hard is mainly fighting for freedom and survival. "Choice" is a main concept throughout the movies, and many characters place freedom on top of everything. In the series, freedom is basically equated with understanding the truth of their world, the Matrix.

Neo is rarely happy in any of the movies, so I wouldn't say truth and happiness line up very much. At any given time, he is stressed out, over-burdened, living with crappy clothes and food, and is only really happy when he has intimate downtime with Trinity.

A good example I have in mind is, well, take a look at talkrational.org or philosophyforums.com -- pervaded with very, very smart people who in many cases tend to be irritable, sarcastic, many times humorless, cold, careless, etc. They live a life that reflects a preference for reason at the expense of happiness (in that they aren't inclined to seek happiness in as many ways as possible, similar to their obvious preference for being "right").

Hmm. I gave philosophyforums.com a quick look. In the two threads I checked, there were just people calmly discussing topics. It's an admittedly small sample size. There are crabby people anywhere. If someone lives for the smug feeling of being "right" (which happens among all types of people, theist, atheist, replubican, democrat, etcetera) then that's more of a social issue than something havnig to do with a dichotomy of truth and happiness. One can be the type of person that persues truth at the expense of happiness yet still remain polite and likeable.

-Lyn

 

[Received]

I disagree with the second part about the characters choosing initial unhappiness for happiness in the long run. The earth is in such a desolate state that it would not be "fixed" in their lifetime even if they were to win the war. They live in a hole in the ground, as the entire surface is unsustainable. Even without the robot rule, they will have generations of work to do to get back to some reasonable state of comfort and pleasure. The generation that is alive now and is fighting so hard is mainly fighting for freedom and survival. "Choice" is a main concept throughout the movies, and many characters place freedom on top of everything. In the series, freedom is basically equated with understanding the truth of their world, the Matrix.

Then, so far as I see it, they're being irrational. More precisely, they've overemphasized the importance of knowing the truth.

Neo is rarely happy in any of the movies, so I wouldn't say truth and happiness line up very much. At any given time, he is stressed out, over-burdened, living with crappy clothes and food, and is only really happy when he has intimate downtime with Trinity.

That's arguable. I think it's clear he's happier than he was when he was a ghost in the Matrix, seeking constantly for meaning, and more precisely what the Matrix is.

 

[Penumbra]

That's arguable. I think it's clear he's happier than he was when he was a ghost in the Matrix, seeking constantly for meaning, and more precisely what the Matrix is.

The thing is- they really didn't show much of what Neo's life was well before he was liberated. It only shows a few days before- him going to work as a corporate tool, working as a hacker at night selling programs, going to some fetish parties and hanging out with his hacker friends there, and that sort of thing.

I remember when he was going to see the Oracle, he pointed out when they passed a restaurant that he used to go there, and really liked it. He had some fond memories.

From the very beginning of the movie, he had already long since heard of the Matrix as part of his hacker culture. So he already was aware of the truth at some level. He at least knew that something was false, something was wrong, without being aware of how big the scope was. If he had never heard of the Matrix, then we as an audience have no idea whether he would have been happy or not.

Once the kernel of truth was stirred, the curiosity built, there was no going back. This goes back to what I said before about how it's often not a choice, and that once reason is used, it's difficult to go back.

At the risk of getting too caught up with the Matrix analogy, I think that touches on an important concept for your thread. Some people experience happiness at the cost of reason but do not do so willingly (basically they by nature are not good at reasoning. the phrase "ignorance is bliss" would apply here), whereas others may be aware of reason but willfully not use it.

-Lyn

 

[Received]

Not sure: it seems clear enough to me based on Neo and Morpheus' conversation when they meet in the flesh for the first time that he was quite unhappy (a splinter in one's mind driving one mad isn't quite indicative of being happy). And good memories don't indicate durative existential happiness.