4 ms·

There's one distinction that I think is worth making - but not made clearly in the essay - and that's between beliefs and decisions/actions. Whether a belief is

by n4r9 8y ago

There's one distinction that I think is worth making - but not made clearly in the essay - and that's between beliefs and decisions/actions. Whether a belief is reasonable often just depends on the available evidence, but whether an action is reasonable depends on the value context, i.e. what your goal is. This adds a different perspective to the example of the American football game. If the value context is purely winning the game, then it is rational not to make the kick. However, the value context is actually a lot larger and more nebulous than that; it's some combination of the students' well-being, the college's reputation, the crowd's entertainment and a bunch of other stuff. Before asserting that someone is being irrational, it's always worth thinking about their value context. Edit: Just remembered that of course Hume already understood this very well. "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>Edit: Just remembered that of course Hume already understood this very well. "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Blegh. Neuroscientifically, "the passions" are just reasoning about your bodily and mental well-being. It can be reasoning better or worse, since "perception is unconscious inference" as Helmholtz put it, but these things largely amount to the same problem being posed with respect to different datasets.
lmilcin 8y ago
I understood rationality here is used to describe the kind of participating in the discussion which is dedicated to establishing objective truth. Rationalizing, on the other hand, is something completely different even if it makes sense from the point of view of your interest. An example: a businessman may have a stake in the project and so publicly state to the effect he believes the project will succeed. The project actually is failing but he is to gain from extending the perception of success. He may be rationally taking care for his financials but to the public, he is dishonest, rationalizing and being objectively irrational given the clear facts that oppose his public statements.

by n4r9 8y ago

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>Edit: Just remembered that of course Hume already understood this very well. "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Blegh. Neuroscientifically, "the passions" are just reasoning about your bodily and mental well-being. It can be reasoning better or worse, since "perception is unconscious inference" as Helmholtz put it, but these things largely amount to the same problem being posed with respect to different datasets.

lmilcin 8y ago

I understood rationality here is used to describe the kind of participating in the discussion which is dedicated to establishing objective truth. Rationalizing, on the other hand, is something completely different even if it makes sense from the point of view of your interest. An example: a businessman may have a stake in the project and so publicly state to the effect he believes the project will succeed. The project actually is failing but he is to gain from extending the perception of success. He may be rationally taking care for his financials but to the public, he is dishonest, rationalizing and being objectively irrational given the clear facts that oppose his public statements.