Ontological rationality

GrowingSmaller · Mar 13, 2015

There is a well known distinction between theoretical and practical rationality. On the one hand it relates to what we ought to believe as true, and on the other to what we ought to do to achieve our goals. Afaik, IIRC anyways.

But what about "ontological rationality" or being or becoming what I or we ought to be?

Or in general how things ought to be, like making cups with holes in the top, bicycles with wheels, or bowls with beautiful decoration?

yesyoushould · Mar 13, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
On the one hand it relates to what we ought to believe as true, and on the other to what we ought to do to achieve our goals.

That Is a huge discussion. Where one doesn't include truth.

I know we have heard this joke before, "the patient says, it hurts when I do this Doc, and the Dr. says, don't do that."

Maybe the question your asking is, should we be good or evil.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 13, 2015

yesyoushould said:
Maybe the question your asking is, should we be good or evil.

The wages of sin is death - Bible

Who hath created life and death that He may try you which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving. - Koran ("existentialist interpretation").

^^
Thats my basic angle.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 13, 2015

yesyoushould said:
That Is a huge discussion. Where one doesn't include truth.

Thanks. Why no truth?

yesyoushould · Mar 13, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
Thanks. Why no truth?

Setting truth against itself is irrational. You have answered your own question. Suggesting that truth is against your "goals". Despite how a person thinks things are forced upon them, truth remains truth.

For example, is it logical to harm yourself? No. Is it logical to harm other's? No. It is a solid truth.

agua · Mar 13, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
There is a well known distinction between theoretical and practical rationality. On the one hand it relates to what we ought to believe as true, and on the other to what we ought to do to achieve our goals. Afaik, IIRC anyways.

But what about "ontological rationality" or being or becoming what I or we ought to be?

Or in general how things ought to be, like making cups with holes in the top, bicycles with wheels, or bowls with beautiful decoration?

According to Yahweh we ought to be beings who love Him and our neighbours and do nothing that contradicts these 2 orders.

Radagast · Mar 13, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
But what about "ontological rationality" or being or becoming what I or we ought to be?

Wouldn't that be deontological rationality? See Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

GrowingSmaller · Mar 14, 2015

agua said:
According to Yahweh we ought to be beings who love Him and our neighbours and do nothing that contradicts these 2 orders.

Yuu got the right idea, if He got the right idea, and He cant be wrong, right?

GrowingSmaller · Mar 14, 2015

Radagast said:
Wouldn't that be deontological rationality? See Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No no no. deontological ehtics is afaik about the right action, the "good will" although it started from -or the term "deontology" was coined by a - utilitarian. Mainly Kant is known for deontology though.

What I am thinking is more not only actions ("Kants "act only on the maxim...." springs to mind) , also but things, people, communities ought to be.

But even art, or beauty... the label beauty "belongs" to certain things, and they ought to have certain characteristics if they are to be regarded as beautiful. Also, its preferable if my flat is tidy etc, so it ough to be so...

Maybe the fungus and the rats, and my enemies have a differnt perspective?

Radagast · Mar 14, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
No no no. deontological ehtics is afaik about the right action, the "good will" although it started from -or the term "deontology" was coined by a - utilitarian. Mainly Kant is known for deontology though.

What I am thinking is more not only actions ("Kants "act only on the maxim...." springs to mind) , also but things, people, communities ought to be.

But even art, or beauty... the label beauty "belongs" to certain things, and they ought to have certain characteristics if they are to be regarded as beautiful. Also, its preferable if my flat is tidy etc, so it ough to be so...

Maybe the fungus and the rats, and my enemies have a differnt perspective?

Ontological relates to what is, deontic/deontological to what ought to be. See Deontic logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Received · Mar 14, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
There is a well known distinction between theoretical and practical rationality. On the one hand it relates to what we ought to believe as true, and on the other to what we ought to do to achieve our goals. Afaik, IIRC anyways.

But what about "ontological rationality" or being or becoming what I or we ought to be?

Or in general how things ought to be, like making cups with holes in the top, bicycles with wheels, or bowls with beautiful decoration?

I'd call that practical rationality. Remember that practical rationality always involves taking abstractions (things in our heads) and applying them.

True Scotsman · Mar 14, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
There is a well known distinction between theoretical and practical rationality. On the one hand it relates to what we ought to believe as true, and on the other to what we ought to do to achieve our goals. Afaik, IIRC anyways.

But what about "ontological rationality" or being or becoming what I or we ought to be?

Or in general how things ought to be, like making cups with holes in the top, bicycles with wheels, or bowls with beautiful decoration?

I'm only aware of one type of rationality, the commitment to reason as ones only guide to action and means of knowledge. Could you explain what you mean by a distinction between "theoretical rationality" and "practical rationality". Are you referring to the analytic/ synthetic dichotomy?

dms1972 · Mar 14, 2015

Are you talking about virtue ethics.?

Josef Pieper writes quite a bit on this - the cardinal virtues, and on the theological virtues.

CS Lewis covers them more briefly in Mere Christianity.

Romano Guardini also has written on them.

Other writters I've heard of would be Alister MacIntyre : After Virtue

In regard to how things ought to be, cups, bicycles etc. This would I suppose be related to Plato's theory of Forms, universals?

ThinkForYourself · Mar 14, 2015

agua said:
According to Yahweh we ought to be beings who love Him and our neighbours and do nothing that contradicts these 2 orders.

Well, unless your neighbour was an adultress. She should be stoned to death of course.

agua · Mar 14, 2015

ThinkForYourself said:
Well, unless your neighbour was an adultress. She should be stoned to death of course.

If you're under the law, of course !

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

Radagast said:
Wouldn't that be deontological rationality? See Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I am not sure, need help. Deontologists are contrasted with virtue ethicists, and deontologists are opposed to consequentialits. I am more od a virtue, consequentialist and a deontologist at the same time. The right choices are virtuous because they lead to health and flourishingh of the agent-system. So I want to avoid "deoltological raitonality" because I may seem like I am advocating right action in an othrwise insignificant cosmic void.

For me ethics is not that simple, reducing to virtue etc. Rather iot is an emergent or complex feature of human being involving life, logic (including deontic logic), actions and consequencess etc all together as aanthropological lived mode of being.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

Received said:
I'd call that practical rationality. Remember that practical rationality always involves taking abstractions (things in our heads) and applying them.

Ok thanks,. But why do things, whats the point of practical reason if not to create goods ? And we know what are goods through ontlological insights. Even food, it posesses properties, which make it "good to eat". There is the practical know how of the chef, but also the ontlologcal 'know what' of the paying customer. Not sure how elase to put it.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

dms1972 said:
Are you talking about virtue ethics.?

Josef Pieper writes quite a bit on this - the cardinal virtues, and on the theological virtues.

CS Lewis covers them more briefly in Mere Christianity.

Romano Guardini also has written on them.

Other writters I've heard of would be Alister MacIntyre : After Virtue

Virtue comes into it, but flourishing ought to be recognised as an ontological good. Which makes it a metaphysical theory too. And hence deontological logic can apply, of pro life virtue is preferable, and to some degree necessary of obligatory a priori for life (if we include by metaphorical analogy non-conscious rationality of living systems, like digestion, and assimilation of nutrients to proper places etc)....?

In regard to how things ought to be, cups, bicycles etc. This would I suppose be related to Plato's theory of Forms, universals?

I am I suppose looking for the essence of virtue, the "form" of the meaning of life or something similar. I believe this comes from coherentist theories of ethics, meaning synthesis, complexity or multidisciplinary insights (from anthropology, phenomenology, theoretical biology, evolutionary theory and fact etc all engaged together) .. emergence rather than a simple reductivistic analysis.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

Radagast said:
Ontological relates to what is, deontic/deontological to what ought to be. See Deontic logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that like is programmed to be pro life, by evolution. In a stochastic, or chaotic, or non linear way (Jobs lot was to act with virtue but suffer an improbablely cruel set of "coin toss" bad luck events), And we act with "bounded raitonality" and limited or finite virtue.

But - back on topic - to compare what is with what is (or use memories etc), or what is with what is with what could be, to help you decide what ought to be. So ontlogy precedes deontology? There needs to be a prior comparisonn order to choose the better option, and go from is to ought.

Received · Mar 16, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
Ok thanks,. But why do things, whats the point of practical reason if not to create goods ? And we know what are goods through ontlological insights. Even food, it posesses properties, which make it "good to eat". There is the practical know how of the chef, but also the ontlologcal 'know what' of the paying customer. Not sure how elase to put it.

I'd say that practical reasoning actualizes the goods that abstract reasoning ascertains. Abstract reasoning is itself ontological reasoning, and more technically ontological reasoning is one type of abstract reasoning (the others being ethics and value theory).

Ontological rationality

Muslm Humanist

Member

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

Member

Newbie

comes and goes

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

comes and goes

True love waits in haunted attics

Objectivist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

True love waits in haunted attics

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency