4 ms·

Rationality is a game. Played within a structure of rules (aka assertions, assumptions, axioms). These rules are not themselves rationally born. They are born

Rationality is a game. Played within a structure of rules (aka assertions, assumptions, axioms). These rules are not themselves rationally born. They are born from habit, tradition, convention, aesthetics, consensus, utility, authority... Lots of possible sources for rules. Logical consistency is one good rule. Puts the rational in rationality. It's just a game. A dream. Ungrounded. That may be obvious, but it's easy to lose yourself in a dream. (Forever even.) That's important to keep in mind.

starkd 4y ago
I would argue most are built on tradition, which offer the ability to build on the results of our forebears without reinventing the wheel. It's also helpful to have a little humility in the face of multiple complexities. That's why challenging tradition, while it can prove useful at times, does not come without a cost.
- swayvil 4y ago
  Oh good point. That's 2 important powers of rationality. Communicability and buildability. That's how we build things like "chemistry". But yes, tradition. That's a big one.
anonporridge 4y ago
It is a game, but we judge games by the fruit they bear, and the harsh reality of life is the ultimate judge. The reason we value the games of rationality and science over the games of religion and mythology is that the former games produce significantly more power. And that's the ultimate game of life. Crudely, might makes right. Those individuals or groups that can most effectively harness various forms of power to first defend, and then extend, their claim of limited resources win the game, by simple virtue of the fact that they remain while their competition fades away. But even games like religion have been, and continue to be valuable frameworks for this ultimate game. There's a strong argument to be made that religion binds large groups of people together towards a common goal and incentivizes individuals to sacrifice the entirety of their life because they believe their rewards will come in the non existent afterlife. That's a powerful game, if you can keep the fantasy alive.
- swayvil 4y ago
  A rational game becomes very useful (and sane) when its rules are founded in observation (that is to say, it's empirical). That's science. And basically all of our "crafts" (cooking, carpentry, gardening...) That could spell the difference between sane rational games and crazy rational games right there. That presence or absence of empirical grounding. And on the flipside, we are all familiar with games that are rigorous, with good logical consistency, but founded on thin air. Dogmatic religion, videogames, fiction...
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Yes, but there is also the game of choosing between sanity and insanity and all manner of flavors in between and beyond. Let us not forget the game of choosing.
    - swayvil 4y ago
      Nice :)
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  “ The reason we value the games of rationality and science over the games of religion and mythology is that the former games produce significantly more power.” This is probably wrong. We know from the stats that power belong to those who show up. The religious are showing up from a demographic standpoint due to above-replacement-rate fertility. Rationality can’t choose when a child should exist with much confidence; the delay causes the slow degradation of the ‘rations’ institute.
- Cornelius267 4y ago
  Many human cultures have existed and thrived without the basis that "producing significantly more power" is the reason to do things. Our archaeology and history have had trouble grasping this, since the idea that power is its own end is so deeply ingrained in our (western) civilization. But it has not always been the case. David Graeber and David Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything" illustrates this with evidence.

starkd 4y ago

I would argue most are built on tradition, which offer the ability to build on the results of our forebears without reinventing the wheel. It's also helpful to have a little humility in the face of multiple complexities. That's why challenging tradition, while it can prove useful at times, does not come without a cost.

swayvil 4y ago
Oh good point. That's 2 important powers of rationality. Communicability and buildability. That's how we build things like "chemistry". But yes, tradition. That's a big one.

anonporridge 4y ago

It is a game, but we judge games by the fruit they bear, and the harsh reality of life is the ultimate judge. The reason we value the games of rationality and science over the games of religion and mythology is that the former games produce significantly more power. And that's the ultimate game of life. Crudely, might makes right. Those individuals or groups that can most effectively harness various forms of power to first defend, and then extend, their claim of limited resources win the game, by simple virtue of the fact that they remain while their competition fades away. But even games like religion have been, and continue to be valuable frameworks for this ultimate game. There's a strong argument to be made that religion binds large groups of people together towards a common goal and incentivizes individuals to sacrifice the entirety of their life because they believe their rewards will come in the non existent afterlife. That's a powerful game, if you can keep the fantasy alive.

swayvil 4y ago
A rational game becomes very useful (and sane) when its rules are founded in observation (that is to say, it's empirical). That's science. And basically all of our "crafts" (cooking, carpentry, gardening...) That could spell the difference between sane rational games and crazy rational games right there. That presence or absence of empirical grounding. And on the flipside, we are all familiar with games that are rigorous, with good logical consistency, but founded on thin air. Dogmatic religion, videogames, fiction...
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Yes, but there is also the game of choosing between sanity and insanity and all manner of flavors in between and beyond. Let us not forget the game of choosing.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    Nice :)
mensetmanusman 4y ago
“ The reason we value the games of rationality and science over the games of religion and mythology is that the former games produce significantly more power.” This is probably wrong. We know from the stats that power belong to those who show up. The religious are showing up from a demographic standpoint due to above-replacement-rate fertility. Rationality can’t choose when a child should exist with much confidence; the delay causes the slow degradation of the ‘rations’ institute.
Cornelius267 4y ago
Many human cultures have existed and thrived without the basis that "producing significantly more power" is the reason to do things. Our archaeology and history have had trouble grasping this, since the idea that power is its own end is so deeply ingrained in our (western) civilization. But it has not always been the case. David Graeber and David Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything" illustrates this with evidence.