So, can there be such a thing as collective rationality, even some of the time? Perhaps sometime, but not all the time?
Is it even possible for an individual to be objective all the time, since they are always around collectives? (Hermits excluded, lol!)

Whether or not collective rationality is considered true rationality is one of the problems. Even if it isn't, it's something that is common in human nature. In your previous post you mentioned behaviorism, constructivism and sociocultural. And those could be things that influence how rationality is defined in a collective.

---

So, can there be such a thing as collective rationality, even some of the time? Perhaps sometime, but not all the time?
Is it even possible for an individual to be objective all the time, since they are always around collectives? (Hermits excluded, lol!)

Whether or not collective rationality is considered true rationality is one of the problems. Even if it isn't, it's something that is common in human nature. In your previous post you mentioned behaviorism, constructivism and sociocultural. And those could be things that influence how rationality is defined in a collective.

Wow.... you're loading the dice on the game. It appears that if there is any social dynamic whatsoever in play then somehow (here's where you smuggle in your concepts) then the virtues, not the vices, in this case 'reason' is somehow the collective you focus on....not mass irrationality, mass hysteria, tribalistic warfare, hate, racism, but RATIONALITY you excoriate....

Interesting.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Let me respond in order.

No faith whatsoever is contained in my personal philosophy.

You believe that your personal philosophy is sufficient to meet all tests of life. While this may be true, it is certainly not proven and, therefore, reliance on the philosophy is a simple act of faith.

Wrong in its entirety. Anything 'real' that you allude to above is just another aspect of reality and anything real in that sense is part of that metaphysic by definition.

Quite true, but an aspect of reality which is not accepted as an aspect of reality due to a failure of understanding is still a rejected aspect of reality. I do not quibble with the concept, I simply believe that when taken as a rigid requirement this position leads to automatic rejection of phenomena which are entirely real but which you cannot fit into your current understanding of objective reality.

Mostly true. A rational man uses logic and reason to acquire knowledge. If 'feelings' or 'divine revelations' are valid how is one to discriminate one person's feelings or divine revelations from another's? Logic and reason have a common bond within all of our humanity. It doesn't have a competitor unlike the 5,000 plus religions of this world. 'Internal reality' ? This is confusing to me. Perhaps you mean some sort of introspection which is , I submit, something that can be best done by the rational faculty.

Defining "self knowledge" as "some sort of introspection" is akin to defining "anthracite" as "some kind of rock". Certainly rational faculty can lead to a detailed understanding of your own core motivations and principles. But in many cases the basic data required for rational analysis cannot be arrived at by direct rational means. The id is often tangled, even in the best of us, and resists direct snooping. Mysticism, as you define it, can be a valuable tool when delving into oneself. Of course, if you are independently wealthy you can hire a psychologist and devote the time to having the psychologist get the information for you.

Speak for yourself. And if you don't believe you are one of the many 'rationalizers' in the world I'd say that is a fairly pessimistic underestimation of your neighbors. You're selling them short on their potential.

When I said that none of us escape rationalization as a means of justification, if only to ourselves, for actions which are not entirely in accord with total rationality, I was not exempting myself. I believe that Man can aspire to be a rational being. Most of us do, the best of us do. But, again, rational thought is a learned skill.

So we should neglect reason so that we think differently even if that means believing in false things, dangerous idealogies, or what?

Of course not, that was not, as you well know, the meaning or intent of my objection.

Nonsense. Of course we all have different conceptual abilities and experiences. The point you addressed is a straw man. It's what man qua man chooses to use his mind for that matters...

I disagree. The ability to reason is central to the point. Were that not so, philosophers such as Aristotle, Rand, etc., would never have been recognized as any other than people with obvious points. Their ability to reason and explain their resasoning process is what sets them apart from the ordinary run of humanity.

If somehow this 'objective reality' you're speaking of is something 'otherwise' please go publish yourself. The rest of the philosophic/intellectual world has been waiting for that refutation for eons. How you somehow then segueway into aspersions with reference to a cannibalistic Jeffrey Dahmer persona escapes me. I do hope that is not your view of what a proper, reasoned, and rationally self interested man is.

My use of Dahmer was deliberate. If you read the transcripts of numerous interviews with the man, you will find that in terms of his gestalt, he was acting in a "proper, reasoned, and rationally self interested" manner. The fact that the rest of us saw him as a horrifying monster is not the central point. The point is that he is an extreme case of a faulty ability to reason leading to unethical behavior.

I reject the premise that rationality is a basic virtue. Rationality, the ability to reason, is a learned skill and a conscious choice.

This is PRECISELY why rationality is a virtue. It is how human beings exist, survive, create civilizations, and achieve happiness.

I see where I misunderstood your statement. I was understanding "basic virtue" to mean "inalienable characteristic"

Never in the history of man has anyone ever given an explanation of why altruism is rational. Not once. Trust me.

Again, if your view of one of the attributes of a rational man is to not give a damn about his family, partner, or small fuzzy animals I should need to remind you that its opposite ethic of altruism, throughout history and without question has led to more slaughter and debasement of all that is good than is possible to imagine. I submit virtualy the entire history of humanity as evidence and exhibit A through ad infinitum. Wherever that individualism, free thought, free action, rationality, science, art, architecture, productivity, benevolence, pride, strength, and even love have flourished there was a concomitant existence of this thing called egoism (enlightened self interest).

I actually suspect you may not really understand the definition or historical significance of the word 'altruism'.

The definition that I use is, "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". That an egoist would defing placing the needs of family above or ahead of self interest as, indeed, following that self interest is immaterial to the fact that such behavior is altruistic behavior in its most common definition.

This last one is so horribly innaccurate as to be almost laughable. Look up the word, 'objectivism'. In most places it is defined as a particular aspect of the branch of philosophy known as ethics that holds that there are rational, absolute moral standards and values. It holds that there is no such thing as 'situational ethics'.

I didn't indict the philosophy, just the description. I have known those who, citing a description of the meaning of ethical behavior very similar to that which you present in your profile, conclude that any action taken in self interest is an ethical and proper behavior. Their contention is that behavior is ethical only if it serves the self interest based upon the immediate situation. I realize that this is a pervision of the concept you are attempting to present. That is my point.

Amazing rant of yours, bill hyland. I got through the first sentence and now post. I'll read the rest when I 'feel like it'. ok?

Don't tell me what I think. I don't live inside of your mind. Everything I said was clear, logical, and in context.

Don't give me lessons as if you are some sort of psychic.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

So, can there be such a thing as collective rationality, even some of the time? Perhaps sometime, but not all the time?
Is it even possible for an individual to be objective all the time, since they are always around collectives? (Hermits excluded, lol!)

Whether or not collective rationality is considered true rationality is one of the problems. Even if it isn't, it's something that is common in human nature. In your previous post you mentioned behaviorism, constructivism and sociocultural. And those could be things that influence how rationality is defined in a collective.

Wow.... you're loading the dice on the game. It appears that if there is any social dynamic whatsoever in play then somehow (here's where you smuggle in your concepts) then the virtues, not the vices, in this case 'reason' is somehow the collective you focus on....not mass irrationality, mass hysteria, tribalistic warfare, hate, racism, but RATIONALITY you excoriate....

Interesting.

At least I'm trying to discuss something by using specific examples. Unlike you, who likes to use unclear generalizations to debate. I was adding my own opinion to something that Sarge said. Something that I agreed with. Saying that I'm "smuggling in" my concepts is just plain unfair. Especially since I explained these exact same things to you before at the science board: Philosophical implications of SETI

This is the last I'll be discussing anything with you Robert. You're a rude and unfair person. I'm going to put you on my ignore list, and keep you there. My only regret is defending your right to post on these message boards behind the scenes, while others were saying that you should go.

---

So, can there be such a thing as collective rationality, even some of the time? Perhaps sometime, but not all the time?
Is it even possible for an individual to be objective all the time, since they are always around collectives? (Hermits excluded, lol!)

Whether or not collective rationality is considered true rationality is one of the problems. Even if it isn't, it's something that is common in human nature. In your previous post you mentioned behaviorism, constructivism and sociocultural. And those could be things that influence how rationality is defined in a collective.

Wow.... you're loading the dice on the game. It appears that if there is any social dynamic whatsoever in play then somehow (here's where you smuggle in your concepts) then the virtues, not the vices, in this case 'reason' is somehow the collective you focus on....not mass irrationality, mass hysteria, tribalistic warfare, hate, racism, but RATIONALITY you excoriate....

Interesting.

At least I'm trying to discuss something by using specific examples. Unlike you, who likes to use unclear generalizations to debate. I was adding my own opinion to something that Sarge said. Something that I agreed with. Saying that I'm "smuggling in" my concepts is just plain unfair. Especially since I explained these exact same things to you before at the science board: Philosophical implications of SETI

This is the last I'll be discussing anything with you Robert. You're a rude and unfair person. I'm going to put you on my ignore list, and keep you there. My only regret is defending your right to post on these message boards behind the scenes, while others were saying that you should go.

Typical of irrational people....can't out argue them? Shut them up. Goodbye , Alex.

I don't have to argue the fine points of the issues with you...and no man does. Once you take the side of arguing against rationality you've conceded all of your polemical ground, and moral ground for that matter. I suppose the notion of trying to have people censored from voicing their opinions makes alot of sense in that context.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Objectivist <----- Not found in my dictionary... ;)

Try irrational.

---

Objectivist <----- Not found in my dictionary... ;)

Try irrational.

Thanks for stopping by...shhheeese.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Amazing rant of yours, bill hyland. I got through the first sentence and now post. I'll read the rest when I 'feel like it'. ok?

Don't tell me what I think. I don't live inside of your mind. Everything I said was clear, logical, and in context.

Don't give me lessons as if you are some sort of psychic.

I'm not telling you what you think, I am telling you what I think.

My impression was that we were discussing our viewpoints on our own and each other's philosophy/religious faith.

Isn't that the point of this thread?

II Timothy 2:14-16

Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Amazing rant of yours, bill hyland. I got through the first sentence and now post. I'll read the rest when I 'feel like it'. ok?

Don't tell me what I think. I don't live inside of your mind. Everything I said was clear, logical, and in context.

Don't give me lessons as if you are some sort of psychic.

I'm not telling you what you think, I am telling you what I think.

My impression was that we were discussing our viewpoints on our own and each other's philosophy/religious faith.

Isn't that the point of this thread?

Yes, Bill. I'm not 'angry' at you. I am just a bit irritated you seem to misunderstand me so. I don't like being misunderstood by otherwise rational people. I think I explained myself rather well though.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Just when you think it's over..................................................... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Is Mr Bush counting his votes again? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Is Mr Bush counting his votes again? ;)

He thinks he is God and everybody should bow to him NOT!!!!

This man is disillusional

Is Mr Bush counting his votes again? ;)

He thinks he is God and everybody should bow to him NOT!!!!

This man is disillusional

I don't think "disillusional" is a word. But of all people, our President does not think he is God. By all accounts he is a very religious man.

Is Mr Bush counting his votes again? ;)

He thinks he is God and everybody should bow to him NOT!!!!

This man is disillusional

I don't think "disillusional" is a word. But of all people, our President does not think he is God. By all accounts he is a very religious man.

Let's see, "disillusional", that would translate to "without illusions". Yes, I can accept that statement.

Is Mr Bush counting his votes again? ;)

He thinks he is God and everybody should bow to him NOT!!!!

This man is disillusional

I don't think "disillusional" is a word. But of all people, our President does not think he is God. By all accounts he is a very religious man.

Let's see, "disillusional", that would translate to "without illusions". Yes, I can accept that statement.

From the rest of his post, I don't think Matthew was complementing the President. But I agree, the President does seem to know what is going on, he just doesn't communicate it very well.

By all accounts he is a very religious man.

Matthew 7:16

You will know them by their fruits.

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .