cassidy408

sure, I hope you find the answers you seek. I can't think of anything

anything you can justify in your mind is rational. How does one decide rational action? Through deduction or experience perhaps. Does experience in that context suggest you taking action would be appropriate? By appropriate do you mean that we want an ideal outcome? I would think so.

you have to be humble when dealing with most people. Argue your points in a way that will make them think they figured it out themselves. In other words, be as cryptic as possible, and if they are smart enough to figure it out they will, and if not, they probably aren't smart enough to do philosophy. Some just aren't, and that's ok too.

hi, I live in grey county. I'm sometimes going as far as Dundalk area, let me know if you wanna meetup and chat sometime.

I guess I should have introduced myself before barging into threads. I come to these ideas from the Alt-Right I guess you could say. I've been into Alt-Right type topics for a number of years now, and since now everyone seems to know what it is, it's not so weird to just come out and say it. So hi all.

i never said that rationality was all bad. I just meant in terms of results based thinking. One can deduce using a method that one would not use for something else. I'm not aiming to achieve a "result" by arguing my stance on which methods I think should be used for which purpose. You don't "know" if my method of thinking is rational or not, you can only see my conclusion that I'm brought to when making my case. Thinking itself is not a rational choice, it is a choice made for the purpose of achieving aims. You think to achieve understanding. You don't have to think because it "makes sense" one could argue for it making sense not to as well, and that's why you start with the end you have in mind. Why do you want to think? To understand. Why do you want understand? To transcend the mundane, and reach a greater depth of meaning perhaps.

"Which is it? Something is either a universal (which doesn't exist) or it's an opinion. Pick one" so if it's not universal, it is just an opinion? Am I understanding you correctly? "Truth is preferable to falsehood" indeed " therefore we emphasize tools that are most likely to uncover truth" agreed "Logic, reason, good grammar, skepticism, empiricism, design of experiments... there are a lot of good things in the toolbox" agreed. and rationalism is good too, but I deem it one of the lesser tools "Prove that rationality is not the best method to approach reality and do so without using this system that you deem to be inferior to the task." What do you need for me to prove it? Give me some guidelines. "Yes, it is the super ultra best method" your argument? "If there was a price for begging the question you would have won it." you could be assuming that I think I'm right. I don't know, but tell me where I am incorrect in my presumption.

It certainly doesn't mean it has to be based on a desire for an action, but it is method based thinking. It is therefore not consequentialist (decided action based on perceived outcome). For something to be rational, one must ask, of what. One does not say. This idea I want to come to fruition is rational. We use rational, as in method of doing something, usually in a universal sense, because universals are rational because of their predictive nature. We recognize a pattern in how things can be done, and we use rational action in correspondence to them.

sure. My reasoning is that universals are many a thing that our reasoning can be based on, which does not give us a sound understanding of the impact of our decisions? Rationality begins from deciding action to deciding reason for action. When one thinks he wants to do something, it is rational to do it. Its rational because "want" It's rational because one justifies it through desire. Or at least can. When there is room for such a rational decision, it doesn't seem like the long term best results are a factor at play Of course I'll have to refute what I just said there, because I could decide best possible result through "rationality" as a thinking method. "Rationality begins from deciding action to deciding reason for action" this point here is still true though, for rationality to be understood, it needs to be understood based on desired action, not desired result.

there is no conflict here. We will but we are pre programmed for certain likenesses. We do with that likeness what we will to an extent, and what is already willed to a certain extent.

"Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?" Yes to rationalize is to justify chosen actions if they are seen as valid. Evil actions can be seen as valid to those who are evil

"critical thinkers" Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and of course most important of all: Plato... Some modern favourites of mine: Brett Stevens, Richard Spencer, Collin Liddell, Jared Taylor. Andy Nowicki, Stephan Molyneux, and I'm sure there are many more I haven't thought of.

rationality is the idea of deciding an action or idea by a principle. This is also judged by reason and logic, which are based on universals, or well reasoned opinions. Is this the maximum best method to getting results? I think not.