Rationality and Reality.

And by "rationaliy" you are referring to....?

I take "rationality" to be the operation of a set of coherent cognitive structures for the purposes of managing the perceived world. Such "coherence" may not be universally apparent but usually has localized group consensus, and the ensuing cognitive structures are actively selective at all levels of the perceptual process.

So basically...let me just make it simple here

Common Sense and Reality???

Some people have it, some people don't.
Some care to, some don't.
Others..are an island amongst themselves.

Hence the whole word "common" making a phrase with sense.

While my "rationale" is something I believe to be a by-product of common sense...its my common sense, experience and knowledge that lead me to think in such a way and could quite possibly not be someone elses, or at least not entirely.
Also, my "reality" is mine alone even though there is such a thing as a common reality, and while I believe you're trying to get this to basics we all should take into consideration the differences within us.

quinn1

I agree with most of what you say. I would stress however that since man is a social animal and since the tools of rationality are essentially linguistic(i.e. depend on common language) then "individual rationality" may be less significant than "group rationality".

Only to the group

I would think the indiviual obviously has no concept of it in such an example, and therefore that leads to the group governing the behavior of the individual based on their needs, not the needs of the individual.

Man may be generally a social animal however, not every man is social, and I think thats quite allowable.

Yes - but the concept of "rationality" always comes up in what we would call "social" situations. E.g. Our flight to New York was cancelled last Friday and we "rationalized" that this was probably a "good thing" because the severe weather would have blighted the trip. Even if we take this as an example of someone "talking to themself" this could still be considered technically social. In short, "rationality" comes under scrutiny only when alternatives can be postulated and such alternatives are usually raised by "another".

I really dont think talking to oneself is social or can be considered social-its personal if you want to catagorize it in such a way

I'd prefer to call that reason managing logic.
I consider rationality as having two definitions...one of the rational order, the other of an emotional disposition, IOW, being rational is underpinned by various emotions...such as calmness and inquisitiveness.

I enjoy reading threads such as these, but i rarely contribute, and here's the reason: My experience from reading a great deal of history, and a little philosophy (hard to read much when it so quickly puts me to sleep), is that the "agility" of the human mind is such, that any number of what eventually prove to be specious lines of reasoning are perfectly plausible at the time at which they are adduced. On that basis, as the years of my life have unrolled, i have come more and more to cease caring what the nature of reality might be, and what is or isn't rational. As a result, when i am at my most scrupulously honest, i attempt to formulate my opinions and base my behavior on my best estimate of what is just behavior toward others.

Just wanted to drop that off . . . as you were . . .

Setanta

Nice thoughts ! These views fit it well with the teachings of some esoteric systems which describe everyday experience as sets of competing rationalities within the same individual, but true "wisdom" as silently giving the other what they need.

David Henry,

Rational "thought" anticipates the random consquences of emotional outbursts and suppresses them because "rationality" is about successful prediction.

In essence we can say that thinking and feeling co-define each other.

So let me get this straight. Is rationality the means by which we perceive the world, or the means by which we interpret that perception? Or both?

David Henry,

I would say "inner" and "outer" states co-define each other, and thinking and feeling both seem to be "inner".

Rufio,

Both.

I would argue against common sense and rationality being necessarily the same thing.

Common sense is often the distillation of cultural beliefs - rationality seems to me to be, simply defined, as having sound reasons to support one's beliefs - ie logically and empirically sound.

Of course, rational beliefs and common sense often lead to similar beliefs, but not necessarily - sometimes rationality will differ markedly eg at one time, it was common sense to believe the earth was flat - AND rational. Once its roundness was logically demonstrated, it became rational to believe it was round - common sense still held, for a long time, that this was irrational.

1) I truly did not see chaos in the other thread -- or at least, no more chaos than normally develops in contentious threads.

2) I don't know!

I'm not sure what in hell you are asking -- but I don't know anyway.

3) I can make some decent guesses -- but whenever I do -- chaos comes on the scene -- and I certainly wouldn't want chaos here in a thread initiated especially to avoid chaos...

...would I?

4) Ahhh...well, I can't think of a "4" right now, but if one hits me, I'll let ya know.

I like that!!!!!

Thing is - or at least so it seems to me - that it is rational to accept that we can never know the true nature of "reality", either of the physical universe, or of the cultural/psychological one - thus being cautious of fiats and absolute certainties and to remain open and questioning - but to then accept that we must live and act within what seems to us to be the real world, and to make the most reasonable and ethical choices we are able to discern at any given moment.

Constantly doubting the reality before us is straining to the organism, and rather precious!

Is that common sense? Hmmmmmm.....

Well in that case we should talk about both aspects seperately.

It's important to identify which is the more permanent ability and which is more constructed. and for which realiability is the most important in dicserning reality.

fresco wrote:

(IMO and still continuing to play devils advocate here)

Rationality can be both individually constructed and commonly constructed through popular ideas and/or hypothesis as well as through an individuals personality/environment and a cultures ideals/morals, etc. etc etc. It can change from what perception either you or another have on it, time, knowledge, etc. etc. etc. to change it. So, I would think then that rationality in general isnt a permanent construct but, a changing and evolving one.
Even if you take into account an individuals ability to perceive rational thought, it can be either one of a permanent or temporary manner. As well, that person could be not perceiving a standard rationality however, it is their level of rationality still.

I could certainly say the same thing for reality and a perception of reality as that would directly reflect on rationality in the same view.

If we take the example of someone mentally inept and unable to perceive what we believe to be reality.
If it is to such a nature as we believe that they have no rational ability and they are unable to discern reality that they are in turn also unreliable.
We cannot say however they do not have their own reality, their own rational thought, or are unreliable all the time. Each case is different as well as the cause/effect. It is a common measure, or commonly accepted measure/knowledge on which we define a rational perception of reality.

This definition/measure is also constructed and should be questioned before setting it into stone.