Reason as an Ethos

[GrowingSmaller]

Quid est veritas. Jokes on me, then?



You ask for more, so more youll have.

If something is good it is preferable (to the person to whom it is good).


Theres a definition of ratinality, philosophical, from "The A to Z of Epistemology" by R Beargen, respectable publisher etc.

The definition runs along the lines of 'rationality is belief action (and perhaps even desire) in accord with proper reasoning.' It is appropriate or fitting, to choose the good, morally speaking. Therefore it is rational to choose the good - that is if the good can be known to any degree whatsoever.

The OP claims the good can be known (values can be known) but reason is useless thereafter. Ka-bling we have a dud entity called the "human truth" which is half ethical but intellectually deformed?

Or he puts it another way, we have intellect but it gets in the way of the good life.


Otherwise... whats youre take? We have neither?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Then why the emphasis on "rational"?

That´s not at all my experience and observation. Where I come from, our mode of attraction and "glue to the universe" (nice and illustrative phrase, btw. !) is anything but rational. When our connection and attraction to life and the universe is lost or disturbed, there is no way to reason us (back) into it.

No its ratioal if its good for us, and (without getting technical) actions must be good for us minimally speaking or we die.

The tread in general is suffering from the atheistic-scientific hijack of the term rationality as only related to sciencey stuff, or the mathematical sciences. The term has been lobotomised, so to speak.

 

[quatona]

No its raiotnal if its good for us, and (without getting technical) actions must be good for us minimally speaking or we die.

"It´s rational if it´s good for us" is redefining "rational" in a way that leads to a useless tautology.

The tread in general is suffering from the atheistic-scientific hijack of the term rationality as only related to sciencey stuff, or the mathematical sciences. The term has been lobotomised, so to speak.

Be that as it may.
The term "rational" traditionally refers to cognitive processes. Trying to link it to "attraction" is uncalled for.
To illustrate the problem: If applying your definition of "rational" ("if it´s good for us") to your phrase "rational attraction" you get incomprehensible word salad.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Disagree, because I believe life can be so bad at times, a rational death may be in our interests (in that its rational to evade harm, suffering etc). So rational "attraction to being" is an added element for the MoL.

 

[quatona]

Disagree, because I believe life can be so bad at times, a rational death may be in our interests (in that its rational to evade harm, suffering etc). So rational "attraction to being" is an added element for the MoL.

I don´t know what MoL stands for.
Whatever - I am not disputing the value of the term "attraction to being", I am disputing the value of the term "rational attraction (to being)".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"It´s rational if it´s good for us" is redefining "rational" in a way that leads to a useless tautology.

But that's entailed by the definition of rationality as "proper reasoning". Surely if theres good its proper to choose it. Its a fit conclusion.

I get the point that its an a priori logic. Goodness is talked of in an abstracted sense rather than "this" or "that" particular good on a concrete level...

But evolution also has its own a priori logic.

MoL is meaning of life. Blessings.

 

[quatona]

But that's entailed by the definition of rationality as "proper reasoning".

No - nothing about it connects it with "attraction". I can be emotionally, intuitively, sexually, possibly spiritually attracted - but not rationally. Albeit post hoc rationalizing my attractions can go a long way.

Surely if theres good its proper to choose it.

You´re pretending to make a deduction while actually just creating a tautology.

Its a fit conclusion.

What is a fit conclusion from what? And what´s attraction got to do with conclusions?

I get the point that its an a priori logic.

What the heck is "a priori logic"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A question for Christians, how did Jesus go from is to ought?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please no stress quatona my buddy in this thread.

No - nothing about it connects it with "attraction". I can be emotionally, intuitively, sexually, possibly spiritually attracted - but not rationally. Albeit post hoc rationalizing my attractions can go a long way.

The way I am looking at it is alll life forms have attraction to being, at some level or another. Eg plants have photosynthesis.

It (attraction to being) might be called 'autopoeisis' at a biologlogical level ie the bringing forth of a organism by itself.

Raitonailty.
Without it we'd not be human or morally relevant. Its because we think in terms of better and worse (sexually, spiritualliy, biologically) etc that we have raitonality ...
I dont mean socially proper as according with convention, but right according to the "map" we have of ourselves and our reality, and the reality mapped.

So you're acting rationally to some degree in denying my theory, because its a fit (proper) conclusion for you in accord with your understanding of human kind, the world, what can be known etc.

I know you think we're not morally relevant, or Ithink I know. You believe in meeting in a place "beyond good and evil" - thats your "good" (preferable place) in my opinion.

If you take away belief desire and action in accord with proper reasoning, how can you eat the right food, love the right kind of person, pay the right fare, believe the right propositions etc...

oughts are what are proper unto the lifeform (like a sandwich fits in the mouth in more ways than just physical size).

You´re pretending to make a deduction while actually just creating a tautology.




What the heck is "a priori logic"?

Thats what I mean- something true by definition of the human condition. Otherwise we have no universal meaning of life. It has to be true a a priori, tautologiclaly, otherwise there'd be exceptions to the rule. And therefore meanings of lives. By a priori logic I am thinking along the lines of an eidos (idea, essence), discovered by reflection as in Husserls thought. Or an a priori truth as in Kant. An essense of the domains "human life" and "human purpose" and therefore an meaning (sound interpreation) given unto them.

What

is a fit conclusion from what? And what´s attraction got to do with conclusions?

Sorry bout this but Ive lost track of this unit of thread. I think i meant fit as in proper, apt, true. A fit conclusion, eg a good conclusion, or an appropriate conclusion.

 

[quatona]

Please no stress quatona my buddy in this thread.The way I am looking at it is alll life forms have attraction to being, at some level or another. Eg plants have photosynthesis.

Raitonailty.
Without it we'd not be human or morally relevant. Its bacause we think in terms of better and worse (sexually, spiritualliy, biologically) etc that we have raitonality - in fact such a mode of being is our raitonailty in my book. Note I am not using "raiotnality" in terms of scientific objectivity, rather a raitonal (apt) response to the human condition which it also raitonality itself (always trying to do whats proper, in a imperfect way).
I dont mean socially proper as according with convention, but right according to the "map" we have of ourselves and our reality.

So you're acting rationally to some degree in denying my theory, because its a fit (proper) conclusion for you in accord with your understanding of human kind, the world, what can be known etc.

It seems to me that "rational attraction to being" is a misnomer, then. Here you are talking about acting rationally (based on the premise of being "attracted to being"). Now, that wouldn´t be a problem if it were only a semantics glitch, but, as far as I can tell, it´s what enables you to sell a circular, tautological argument as epistemological progression.

If you take away belief desire and action in accord with proper reasoning, how can you eat the right food, love the right person, pay the right fare, believe the right propositions etc.

I´m not disputing here that we use reason/rationality to arrive at decisions (albeit in my understanding it tends to be post-hoc rationalization rather than our actual motor).
I am disputing that we can be "rationally attracted".
Maybe what you mean is: We use reason/rationality in order to figure out what´s the best way to live up to the fullest to our attraction to being?

Thats what I mean- something true by definition of the human condition.

Who gets to define the "human condition"?

Otherwise we have no universal meaning of life.

You make it sound like we have it, and you make it sound like not having it would be some sort of loss.

It has to be true a a rriori, tautologiclaly, otherwise there'd be exceptions to the rule.

I do understand that you would like to be there such - but making a conclusion from a fallacy of consequence your premise isn´t really convincing.

And therefore meanings of lives. By a priori logic I am thinking along the lines of an eidos (idea, essence), discovered by reflection as in Husserls thought. Or an a priori truth as in Kant.

Then " a priori logic" another misnomer. Logic is about proper progression, not about a priori assumptions or "truths" - that´s the opposite of logic.

Sorry bout this but Ive lost track of this unit of thread. I think i meant fit as in proper, apt, true. A fit conclusion, eg a good conclusion, or an appropriate conclusion.

Sorry, but I would insist you try to answer the question.
You were talking about a fit conclusion (implying you were presenting the result of a logical progression). So I would like to know: What´s the premise, what´s the progression, what´s the conclusion (because - as it looks to me at this point - there is no progression, and the conclusion is identical with the premise).

On another note: In my understanding life (or being, or conscious being) necessarily consists of "good" and "bad". Thus, an "attraction to life/being" would mean the embracing of both "good" and "bad", and doesn´t imply the striving for the "good".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please no stress quatona my buddy in this thread.The way I am looking at it is alll life forms have attraction to being, at some level or another. Eg plants have photosynthesis.

It (attraction to being) might be called 'autopoeisis' at a biologlogical level ie the bringing forth of a organism by itself.

Raitonailty.
Without it we'd not be human or morally relevant. Its because we think in terms of better and worse (sexually, spiritualliy, biologically) etc that we have raitonality - in fact such a mode of being is our raitonailty in my book. Note I am not using "ratnality" in terms of scientific objectivity,
I dont mean socially proper as according with convention, but right according to the "map" we have of ourselves and our reality, and the reality mapped.

So you're acting rationally to some degree in denying my theory, because its a fit (proper) conclusion for you in accord with your understanding of human kind, the wo

It seems to me that "rational attraction to being" is a misnomer, then. Here you are talking about acting rationally (based on the premise of being "attracted to being"). Now, that wouldn´t be a problem if it were only a semantics glitch, but, as far as I can tell, it´s what enables you to sell a circular, tautological argument as epistemological progression.


I´m not disputing here that we use reason/rationality to arrive at decisions (albeit in my understanding it tends to be post-hoc rationalization rather than our actual motor).
I am disputing that we can be "rationally attracted".
Maybe what you mean is: We use reason/rationality in order to figure out what´s the best way to live up to the fullest to our attraction to being?





Who gets to define the "human condition"?

You make it sound like we have it, and you make it sound like not having it would be some sort of loss.

I do understand that you would like to be there such - but making a conclusion from a fallacy of consequence your premise isn´t really convincing.

Then " a priori logic" another misnomer. Logic is about proper progression, not about a priori assumptions or "truths" - that´s the opposite of logic.



Sorry, but I would insist you try to answer the question.
You were talking about a fit conclusion (implying you were presenting the result of a logical progression). So I would like to know: What´s the premise, what´s the progression, what´s the conclusion (because - as it looks to me at this point - there is no progression, and the conclusion is identical with the premise).

On another note: In my understanding life (or being, or conscious being) necessarily consists of "good" and "bad". Thus, an "attraction to life/being" would mean the embracing of both "good" and "bad", and doesn´t imply the striving for the "good".

rld, what can be known etc.

If you take away belief desire and action in accord with proper reasoning, how can you eat the right food, love the right kind of person, pay the right fare, believe the right propositions etc...

oughts are what are proper unto the lifeform (like a sandwich fits in the mouth).




Thats what I mean- something true by definition of the human condition. Otherwise we have no universal meaning of life. It has to be true a a priori, tautologiclaly, otherwise there'd be exceptions to the rule. And therefore meanings of lives. By a priori logic I am thinking along the lines of an eidos (idea, essence), discovered by reflection as in Husserls thought. Or an a priori truth as in Kant.


Sorry bout this but Ive lost track of this unit of thread. I think i meant fit as in proper, apt, true. A fit conclusion, eg a good conclusion, or an appropriate conclusion.

Please no stress quatona my buddy in this thread.The way I am looking at it is alll life forms have attraction to being, at some level or another. Eg plants have photosynthesis.

It (attraction to being) might be called 'autopoeisis' at a biologlogical level ie the bringing forth of a organism by itself.

Raitonailty.
Without it we'd not be human or morally relevant. Its because we think in terms of better and worse (sexually, spiritualliy, biologically) etc that we have raitonality - in fact such a mode of being is our raitonailty in my book. Note I am not using "ratnality" in terms of scientific objectivity,
I dont mean socially proper as according with convention, but right according to the "map" we have of ourselves and our reality, and the reality mapped.

So you're acting rationally to some degree in denying my theory, because its a fit (proper) conclusion for you in accord with your understanding of human kind, the world, what can be known etc.

If you take away belief desire and action in accord with proper reasoning, how can you eat the right food, love the right kind of person, pay the right fare, believe the right propositions etc...

oughts are what are proper unto the lifeform (like a sandwich fits in the mouth).




Thats what I mean- something true by definition of the human condition. Otherwise we have no universal meaning of life. It has to be true a a priori, tautologiclaly, otherwise there'd be exceptions to the rule. And therefore meanings of lives. By a priori logic I am thinking along the lines of an eidos (idea, essence), discovered by reflection as in Husserls thought. Or an a priori truth as in Kant.


Sorry bout this but Ive lost track of this unit of thread. I think i meant fit as in proper, apt, true. A fit conclusion, eg a good conclusion, or an appropriate conclusion.

Ok we have good and bad, we ought to prefer the good, that "mechanism" is called raiotnality (1), also that end (preferability of good over evil) is called raiotnality (2).

If we have raiotnality (1) and (2) but prefer evil, 100% evil, we die. because rationalty (2) or goodness is pro life.

So we need to have (1) and (2) in a life sustaining manner, thats raitonal attraction to being (mechanism and process).

Note some backgroins, the human as animal is designed (or better evolved) to prefer health, and find if preferable, albeit in a haply manner.

 

[quatona]

So, GS, to clarify things, I will write a short Q&A:

Q: Are we "attracted to being"?
A: Typically yes (except when someone isn´t).

Q: Is attraction a result of reason/rationality (i.e. can we be "rationally attracted")?
A: No.

Q: Is being "attracted to being" a prerequisite for having a fulfilling life and enriching the lives of others?
A: Yes.

Q: In order to find out how to live up to our "attraction to being" to the fullest, do we often attempt to use reason/rationality?
A: Yes.

Q: Is reason/rationality the most preferable, most successful, most reliable tool for that task?
A: No.

 

[quatona]

Ok we have good and bad, we ought to prefer the good, that "mechanism" is called raiotnality (1), also that end (preferability of good over evil) is called raiotnality (2).

If we have raiotnality (1) and (2) but prefer evil, 100% evil, we die. because rationalty (2) or goodness is pro life.

So we need to have (1) and (2) in a life sustaining manner, thats raitonal attraction to being (mechanism and process).

So, minus all the bells and whistles:
In order to sustain life we must sustain life.

Note some backgroins, the human as animal is designed (or better evolved) to prefer health, and find if preferable, albeit in a haply manner.

If we are designed to prefer something, there is no need for reason/rationality as a tool in order to pursue it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose psychopaths can survive, then, but I am not sure they have zero sense of better and worse (ie a part of raitonality), even if its an unconventional one.


Q: if a plant evolved consciouness, and could learn to choose form life enhancing sentiments (eg as a rule liking sunshine) do you think it would. Or that there would be equal adaptivity across all mutants, even the ones who liked herbicide?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Rational or not, everyone acts based on his faith-assumptions. I could argue how mine is correct, but that is straying for the point here, so I will rather stress that ALL people are acting based on faith-assumptions.

Our job is to examine these assumptions to see if they be true; therfore ultimately rational, or false; therefore ultimately irrational.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure that children know what assumptions are, rather they discover themselves in a world, or similar, pre philosophically.

Imagine: *i* have to presume something before *I* can be, a self refuting statement.

 

[Received]

Quid est veritas. Jokes on me, then?



You ask for more, so more youll have.

If something is good it is preferable (to the person to whom it is good).


Theres a definition of ratinality, philosophical, from "The A to Z of Epistemology" by R Beargen, respectable publisher etc.

The definition runs along the lines of 'rationality is belief action (and perhaps even desire) in accord with proper reasoning.' It is appropriate or fitting, to choose the good, morally speaking. Therefore it is rational to choose the good - that is if the good can be known to any degree whatsoever.

The OP claims the good can be known (values can be known) but reason is useless thereafter. Ka-bling we have a dud entity called the "human truth" which is half ethical but intellectually deformed?

The good can be known, many times through reason, but also through authority, culture, more directly judgment, etc. I'm not saying reason is useless after this; reason can be the way through which we ascertain the good, and in other cases after ascertaining the good we need reasoning many times to flesh it out for ourselves and others. What I'm saying is that reason by itself offers as much direction as a ladder does with regard to attaining the good.

"The good" here referring to those "things" we aim for which (in our estimation at least) confer the best example of something, i.e., something fully (or on its way to being) flourished.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well... Frijtof Kapra defined the whole organism as cognition. (in "The Web of Life")