3 ms·

> "We'll die anyway, so why not just kill myself now" is perfectly rational too. If living grants zero utility, then yeah. But 99.9% of people enjoy living, or

> "We'll die anyway, so why not just kill myself now" is perfectly rational too. If living grants zero utility, then yeah. But 99.9% of people enjoy living, or expect to in the future, so for them it’s not logical at all. > "I should cheat everybody, including my own parents, spouse, and kids, if it benefits me materially and it's 100% certain I can get away with it", is perfectly rational also. But it’s an unrealistic, hypothetical situation, so we don’t really learn anything from it. > And there are many more failure modes of rationality-only based function, a lot of which totally hurt the person doing the rational-only thinking - and literature on the matter, both scientific and philosophical. Rationalism isn’t the same thing as being overly rational. Rationalism is based on irrational presuppositions, and thus is actually rather irrational. > That's why emotions were evolutionarily developed. Woof.

coldtea 4y ago
>If living grants zero utility, then yeah. But 99.9% of people enjoy living, or expect to in the future, so for them it’s not logical at all. Notice how you called it "not logical" based on utility here? Well, fear of death (not the regular kind that's about avoiding risky/deathly situations, but the chronic anxiety for one's eventual demise, to the point one needs medication even), also has zero utility. And yet your initial premise was about how logical it is, since people really do die and it's also 100% probable. >But it’s an unrealistic, hypothetical situation, so we don’t really learn anything from it. Nothing unrealistic about it. Some people go all in on it. And many many more go partially for it (narcissists, sociopaths, con men, and so on) And it's rational too - nothing illogical about it. But does it really befit a human being? Is being rational in this aspect the best path for someone? If not, perhaps rationality by itself is not the be all end all? >Rationalism isn’t the same thing as being overly rational. Rationalism is based on irrational presuppositions, and thus is actually rather irrational. Yes, you gotta start with some axioms that themselves are not derived "rationally", but that's not the point I'm making. When we talk about rationality, we talk about the really existing impure rationality (a system based on logic plus some non-rationally-derived axioms/pressupositions). That's the rationality you meant when you said "fear of death is rational", and that is what I meant when I said that being overly rational is a problem. My point was that using rationality (with its pressupositions and everything, or even an imaginary "pure" one, if it was possible to exist) as your only tool. Rationality is not enough to cover the whole human experience and to guide our life and decisions. In any case, the above just musings on rationality. Let's get on the point of "fear of death" again: "fear of death", is not a rational behavior. Sure, it's a rational thing to be afraid of an activity with a high death risk if you want to live. But it's irrational to be held back in life by a persistent fear of one's eventual death. One is caution. The other is a phobia - an anxiety disorder. It even has a name, thanatophobia, and is listed in the diagnostic manual for such disorders (DSM). In fact, a key insight here is that fear is an emotion. As in "fear of death"... Woof!

coldtea 4y ago

>If living grants zero utility, then yeah. But 99.9% of people enjoy living, or expect to in the future, so for them it’s not logical at all. Notice how you called it "not logical" based on utility here? Well, fear of death (not the regular kind that's about avoiding risky/deathly situations, but the chronic anxiety for one's eventual demise, to the point one needs medication even), also has zero utility. And yet your initial premise was about how logical it is, since people really do die and it's also 100% probable. >But it’s an unrealistic, hypothetical situation, so we don’t really learn anything from it. Nothing unrealistic about it. Some people go all in on it. And many many more go partially for it (narcissists, sociopaths, con men, and so on) And it's rational too - nothing illogical about it. But does it really befit a human being? Is being rational in this aspect the best path for someone? If not, perhaps rationality by itself is not the be all end all? >Rationalism isn’t the same thing as being overly rational. Rationalism is based on irrational presuppositions, and thus is actually rather irrational. Yes, you gotta start with some axioms that themselves are not derived "rationally", but that's not the point I'm making. When we talk about rationality, we talk about the really existing impure rationality (a system based on logic plus some non-rationally-derived axioms/pressupositions). That's the rationality you meant when you said "fear of death is rational", and that is what I meant when I said that being overly rational is a problem. My point was that using rationality (with its pressupositions and everything, or even an imaginary "pure" one, if it was possible to exist) as your only tool. Rationality is not enough to cover the whole human experience and to guide our life and decisions. In any case, the above just musings on rationality. Let's get on the point of "fear of death" again: "fear of death", is not a rational behavior. Sure, it's a rational thing to be afraid of an activity with a high death risk if you want to live. But it's irrational to be held back in life by a persistent fear of one's eventual death. One is caution. The other is a phobia - an anxiety disorder. It even has a name, thanatophobia, and is listed in the diagnostic manual for such disorders (DSM). In fact, a key insight here is that fear is an emotion. As in "fear of death"... Woof!