Are humans a rational species?

So, what do I read of Fil's post, nothing except these few very few words:
"@think rethink,
Not most of the time."

Now I have to read the whole thread up to the last one, otherwise how could I react to the topic of the thread at all?

I will be back as soon as I have read the whole thread to date, to contribute my thinking on "Are humans a rational species?"

. . . . . .

I am back, and I see the author of the thread is one calling himself, think rethink.

Here is his OP:
Dear think rethink, the way I see man’s rational nature, it is indeed the fact that man can and does reason, but he is ruled by his passions, one of which is vanity, manifested with irrationality in the face of the problems confronting mankind from since the sons of Adam and Eve.

One of the problems of mankind is war, and everyone with a working reason i.e. not insane. agrees that war is irrational, and it is very possible to end war altogether with humans, still to date war is still with us.

And you know what and why?

It is because man is though rational ruled or self-moved by his passion of vanity, in the present context, the desire for fame and power.

Dear think and rethink, read the news every morning and it is about some war somewhere, and you will concur with me that ultimately, the war you are studying right now, it is moved by the passion for vanity in humans.

Okay, dear readers here, this is one of my insights into the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, namely, that with mankind, man thinks with reason but conducts himself on passion, chief and the most impetuous one is his folly attachment to vanity.

Think about that!

Dear sus.

I read your view a few times and thought about it as encouraged,
and here is the effect.

Humans are Functional by design and do not have the capacity to be dysfunctional at all.

But what is considered functional?

This depends on the objective.

The human body and mind is like a territory which multiple forces are attempting to control and are fighting over it, and the territory keeps changing hands constantly.

Each kingdom occupying the territory, have their own unique version of survival which shapes their respective agendas accordingly.

It wouldn't be functional for a fish to leave the ocean,
And it wouldn't be functional for a rabbit to enter the ocean.

Each design decrees what's functional or dysfunctional.

I would categorize the forces which are one at a time occupying the mind as follows.

Existence and survival.
Survival divides in two contradicting directions.

1 the survival of existence.
2 the survival of survival on the expense of existence.

I would also illustrate existence as bliss,
and survival as either suffering or happiness but not Joy.

I would also describe suffering and happiness as the very same energy but processed differently depending on surrounding circumstances.

Now, what's functional to survival of existence is dysfunctional to survival of Survival, because the objective of existence is life, and the objective of survival is conterfaight and synthetic life which is actually worse than death.

War has a function to destroy, darken, and torture.
All this drama is considered action, excitement, and vibrance.

Substituting for the natural vibration and constant activity that actual life consists of, but the conterfaight imitation cannot supply.

Even when the territory is ruled by this energy,
There are tremendous obstacles in its way limiting severely its space to operate.

Drama requires resentment, which requires conflict and friction.

There has to be a good guy fighting the bad guy to produce the desired commodity.

Also the bad guy needs to be aware of his evil nature.

Otherwise, who is resenting?
Who is suffering?

This agenda, looking for trouble needs to stage a non existent fight.

It claims conschiosly that it's looking for freedom.
It is subconsciously pursuing trauma and perpetuating it.

The subconscious perpetrator is then crying victim and blaming everyone in the external environment for the suffering in order to comfulage "both actions",
Blaming others gives the impression of sincere intentions to be free.

It also diverting the focus away from the culprit and is providing excuses and explanation as to how the person was forced to lose self control (but truthfully there is no such thing as being in control enough to produce precision, but not being in control at all not to produce the the action to begin with).

I should also clarify the following.

Not only is survival of survival limited and contained by the need to conceal the destructive party along with its needed acts of sabotage,

On top of that it had to conceal the fact about its own nature, which is its dependency on resentment and its nature to seek resentment and celebrate its achievement.

The rules of logic renders it impossible to achieve resentment when there is an active interest in it.


The inevitable relief upon achieving this state, spoils the party.

Concealing the obvious design of its behavior and the course of its direction is next to impossible.

This is why people seem to possess good and evil,
Because the challenges to evil, allow for tremendously good deeds, because the devil is forced to act nicely to effectively remain subconscious.

But in reality, one can only be 100% a given nature.
When we claim to possess several agendas, we also confess about these agendas possessing us (if your possessions control you, than there to are), and this isn't a consistent owner so how is it a owner at all?

Imagine the owner of a store enters the place, is bossing employees around, and after a while someone else comes in and is bossing the owner around,
Who is the real owner?

sometimes can over ride natural behavior with logic but only strong willed people (not me)

Part One


Dear think and rethink, I am truly glad that we can and do at this point in time talk together, to concur on our thoughts.

Now, your thread topic is Are humans a rational species?

You are good with words but I would propose that we focus our talk on the basis of the common perennial experiences of mankind.

I know from experience which is I submit the common experience of mankind since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, namely, that man is indeed rational, he does think and act rationally, otherwise men will not understand each other at all.

On the other hand when it comes to some recurring behaviors of mankind, the experience of mankind from since as I said the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, it is that men conduct themselves in grand swathes of man's conduct, irrationally - sad indeed.

The human agenda then is for mankind to always and everywhere adhere to rational behavior.

This brings in the question what is rational behavior?

See next post for Part Two.

Part Two

Currently what is rational behavior from one group of mankind like say the USA is not rational behavior according to another group of humans.

For example, the US maintains itself to be I am sure, into rational behavior, in its military presence everywhere: it has soldiers and war equipment in more countries than you can count with your fingers and toes.

On the other hand North Korea holds itself I am sure to be into rational conduct, with its build-up of missile power, in order to be capable of sooner than later bombing US cities with nuclear tipped missiles.

Another example, closer to home in web forums, atheists maintain that they are into rational behavior in denying God exists, while theists like one, Susmariosep, insists that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

By the way, dear think and rethink, are you an atheist?

As of now, atheists will not talk with me anymore because as one of them, a poster by the name of Maxcondanna whatever, insists that they don’t talk with me because I am always insulting them.

Okay, atheists here, and also dear think and rethink, if you be an atheist, see if you be into rational thinking and acting, let us from both sides undertake this experiment on who is into rational thinking and acting, namely, as follows below.

Tell me atheists, what are my insults on you and I will promise to not anymore throw them on you, will you return to talk with me, will you in the name of rational behavior, return and resume our exchange on the issue God exists or not?

Okay, readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to witness the reaction of atheists, also dear think and rethink, your reaction if you be an atheist.

Dear sus.
First my appreciation for your input,
Thank you so much.

Now.
the common perennial experiences of mankind,

Maybe I'm slow, but I have yet to find the mankind, possessing the experience.

Is the experience an external commodity, consumed by making?

Let's locate the consumer.

When you are hungry, can you locate the one who possesses the hunger?

After lots of searching I concluded that only the experience of hunger possesses itself exclusively.

That no external separated entity is affected by it.

Irationality and foolishness are not to be confused.

Foolishness is an external judgement while rationality is an internal and actual state regardless of label.

A claim that mankind possess a variety of experiences even of contradicting nature,

Is like a slave belonging to a group of associates sharing him, and the slave claiming to be t owning his bosses.

Either you are the experience itself, or you are possessed by it.

To answer your question.

What is an atheist?

What is a theist?

I'm effectively ignorant in matters of such nature.

I'm aware of my inability to deal with my own fantasy.

Dear think rethink, please rethink your words as follow below:

“When you are hungry, can you locate the one who possesses the hunger?”

I ask you, is that not an example of the common perennial experiences of mankind, namely, hunger?

Okay, please do not write without thinking and rethinking, use words to express clear thoughts, not to muddle up viable communication.

I use the term, “common perennial experiences of mankind," can you please present what is to you the opposite of that phrase; because unless we get to concur on what is the meaning of the phrase, “common perennial experience of mankind,” we you and I will not get connected at all.

And that is sad, because when humans talk they must get first connected on the concepts of the words they use.

And we accomplish that connection by we two uniformly knowing a phrase and knowing its opposite.

For example, we both know the meaning of the phrase, nose in our face, by knowing also its opposite, no nose in our face.

Do you get that?

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back to await with bated breath for think rethink to tell us how he understands the phrase, the common perennial experiences of mankind, by producing a phrase that is the opposite of the common perennial experiences of mankind.

And produce an example of the common perennial experiences of mankind, as also an experience that is not of the common perennial experiences of mankind.

That will show us that think rethink knows the meaning of the phrase, common perennial experiences of mankind.

Annex

The opposite is the uncommon experience of no one.

An experience isn't controlled, owned or possessed by anyone, just like to nature of fire isn't.

It cannot be compared to anything because the present moment isn't an additional past moment, it's the only moment (what we consider past is like the virtual environment on your movie screen which is contained by the screen size, but is part of the overall physical environment of the theater,
But the electricity fueling the projector is an aspect of the actual overall environment, the story we label past, is fueled by life in the present moment, regardless of the conflict in its agenda)


Therefore, it's the only real experience while everything else is an attempted description of reality which isn't anything but a false signal indicating the real thing.

Reality isn't common and isn't labeled.

There is a common story called hunger.

The Actual experience is one at a time, all on its own, and blind energy mechanically making its natural course.

No one has chosen to become hungry, and no choosing mechanism is being afflicted by this ordeal.

choice is a concept and incapable of experiencing, and even will is an actual effect of a false belief, and therefore is incapable of suffering and experiencing.

The only one capable if experiencing, is experience itself.

In my raw theory,
The refusal to give up the delusional I, society has imposed on us as infants,
Results in the endless pursuit of the next moment, next life,
The better moment, the better life,
The path in which the future is always brighter, simply because it doesn't exist.

Dear think rethink, I really can't figure out what point you are trying to get me to concur with you on.

Your thread is "Are humans a rational species?"

And you want to exchange views with fellow humans.

I am a fellow human, so let us first work as to concur on what is the point we want to think on together, in regard to your question: "Are humans a rational species?"

The point I am trying to get you to think on is that man is rational otherwise men would not be able to communicate among themselves at all.

On the other hand, there are human behaviors which are irrational, like for example, war.

Okay, I give the exposition of my point, that man is rational otherwise men among themselves would not at all get to communicate among themselves, but there are human behaviors which are contrary to reason, for example, war.

And I say that the common perennial experiences of mankind show that on the one hand man is rational, on the other hand there are behaviors with mankind that are irrational, like for example, war.

Do you get the point I am trying to get you to concur with me on, at all?

Okay, think rethink, what is the point you want me to concur with you on?

Your thread is on "Are humans a rational species?"

The way I see your conduct here in your own thread, you seem to be into doing nothing but trying to stray away from your own thread, namely, "Are humans a rational species?"

Okay, dear think rethink, tell me when you react to this post from me, What is the point you want me to concur with you on?

Dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what is the reaction of think rethink to my present post: Will he tell me and mankind what is the point he wants to get me to concur with him on, in this his thread, "Are humans a rational species?"

Or he is into straying into something else.

Dear sus.

Thank you so much for your time an attention.


The phrasing of the question was formed with the assumption that rationality is either constantly present or never.

It is also leading into the question what are we?

What makes gravity, gravity?
Its nature to gravitate.

What makes humans, humans,
Is the human design.

What are the properties of the human design?

Obviously human life is not a group of forces since the concept group, is a name for a defective observation only because it isn't the opposite of an individual, it's merely referring to a concentration of sustained individuals rather than a additional type of similar entity of contrasting nature (a group, is not another version of an individual).

The perspective that humans can switch their rationality on and off, or have circumstance decide this, wasn't considered.

Should such a theory be possible,
The question sould be phrased as follows,
Is it possible for humans to endure a laps in their rationality?

If you see yourself as a balanced field of various energy with a human equation (vs whatever balance of the various energy types equals fire, water, oxygen, and so on), it should be evident that the term rational with humans, should be the equivalent to the term nature applied to non human energy fields.

Is fire capable to deviate from its nature?
The universe would likely have been decimated instantly.

Humans are rational by design, meaning they are natural by their essential design.

Sus.
The point I am trying to get you to think on is that man is rational otherwise men would not be able to communicate among themselves at all.

Think.
Correct,
On top of that, if man wouldn't be consistently rational from instinct to execution, they wouldn't be able to return to rationality once they have deviated, just like a corrupted os in a computer.

Even if they would,
communication between words (associations) wouldn't be possible due to lack of compatibility between the corrupted and uncorrupted memorized data.

Sus
On the other hand, there are human behaviors which are irrational, like for example, war.

Okay, I give the exposition of my point, that man is rational otherwise men among themselves would not at all get to communicate among themselves, but there are human behaviors which are contrary to reason, for example, war.

Think.
In my opinion,
behavior is confirming the nature of the driving force.

If Man is rational but not his occasional behavior.
What makes man the man it is, if the source of the behavior is fully controlling the so called man but man himself isn't in control?

Sus
And I say that the common perennial experiences of mankind show that on the one hand man is rational, on the other hand there are behaviors with mankind that are irrational, like for example, war.

Do you get the point I am trying to get you to concur with me on, at all?

Okay, think rethink, what is the point you want me to concur with you on?

Your thread is on "Are humans a rational species?"

The way I see your conduct here in your own thread, you seem to be into doing nothing but trying to stray away from your own thread, namely, "Are humans a rational species?"

Okay, dear think rethink, tell me when you react to this post from me, What is the point you want me to concur with you on?

Think.
What we are.

Sus.
Dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what is the reaction of think rethink to my present post: Will he tell me and mankind what is the point he wants to get me to concur with him on, in this his thread, "Are humans a rational species?"

Or he is into straying into something else.

Think.
Depending on what makes the else, actually different.

Straying is an actual observation, but is it based on Actual judgement?

Dear think rethink, I see that your thread is on a question from you, so you want to read answers from fellow posters here to your question.

The other way to start a thread is to propose a topic for everyone to exchange thoughts on, so that everyone learns something useful from each other.

The way I see posters who bring up a question for fellow posters to answer, I am sure they have their own answers, and they still care to know about how others answer their question.

Why do I say that people with a question here already have their own answer to their own question?

It is because people here in a web forum were not born yesterday, so that they are not like kids in pre-nursery school, who need to get all sorts of answers from their teachers; because these kids for being born yesterday, they don't have anything of any ideas in their brain, except they want to eat and they have to defecate and urinate, and they communicate their needs by crying.

Now, I say that man is by his very nature rational, i.e. he uses reason, because otherwise mankind will not be able at all to communicate among themselves.

Do you have the same thought as I have, or you have another idea, even one that is diametrically opposite to mine, namely, you are of the idea that man is by nature not rational.

There, now please let mankind read your answer to my question to you, namely, what is your position on the rational nature of man, is it a yes answer or no answer.

For myself it is yes, "Yes, man is by his nature rational, otherwise mankind will not be able to communicate among themselves."

Okay, dear readers here, let us sit back to await with bated breath to witness what is the answer of think rethink to his own question, "Are humans a rational species?"

I say yes, let us see what is his answer.

And please, dear think rethink, when you produce your answer, just be concise and precise, still using simple and clear words.

Like this: First answer the question with yes or no, then give your reason why - no need for extraneous wordiness.

You have the makings of 'a philosopher' but seem to be unaware that most of your thoughts on 'rationality'(etc) have been covered by standard psychology and philosophy texts. 'Rationality' for example could be defined as any useful system of thought whether considered as 'logical' or otherwise. Most 'religious' thinking falls into that category and is often held side by side with 'scientific' rationality in the same individual. You might find the following link interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

Dear readers here, I will reproduce my three premises by which I do critique on other people’s thinking, like for instance, on Fresco, who is to my mind, into name dropping plus technical terms dropping.

Here are the three premises by which I judge other people’s thinking, to determine whether they make any sense at all in the biggest picture of reality.
Okay, dear Fresco, I meet you again here in this thread from think rethink.

And I commend you for you post in this thread of think and rethink (see readers here, the Annex below for Fresco’s post), but I have my reservations.

You are into your idea that everything has to be judged for its ultimate sense, on science rather than philosophy of which religion is a sub-topic.

Now, let mankind read what for you are let us say, your three or more or less premises by which you judge a fruit of thinking to make ultimate sense or not.

And please do your very own personal thinking and writing, no need to drop names and drop technical terms, and of course no need to bring up internet links.

Just for once in your socalled intellectual existence, do some thinking from your very own personal stock brain resources.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to read the reaction of Fresco to my message in the present post.

But I dare tell you, Fresco will bring up goats and cows and donkeys, or go into who are trolls.

Annex

No, we don't meet. That answer has nothing to do with you. Nobody with a brain is going to respond more than once or twice to your repetitive word salad unless they, like you, have also been identified as an ignorant bloody nuisance who in your case has been banned from other forums.

Thank you for your input.

I'm in total agreement with every word,
I would just like to stress that logic and ultimate utility cannot be separated, one is a condition in the other.

And perhaps this is why I don't find my position any different than yours,

Because when claiming that rationality is ultimately raw nature and a bewildering term, defined by what seems identical but is an actual contradiction.

It is based on the conviction that everything coming out from the human being is positive, functional, and faithful to Its design as being incapable to destroy.

External destruction invading a person is the only negativity there truly is,

But before the human being can reproduce the negativity, it has to become positive.

And this occurs through a transformation in identity and a reversal of considerations and values.

Pleasure, Joy, and contentment, become negative,
While friction, resentment, and anxiety become the perceived expression of ultimate existence (life seems dull and dead in their absence).

As the definition of life keeps on transforming while identities come and go,

So does the inconsistency in the behavior.

but the motives never change.

Yes.

And this includes war.

There are no irational behaviours at all.

If self destruction is considered the ultimate life, than not waging war is irational.

But the considerations of what's life, keeps transforming along with the ego type that dominates at the moment.

Thanks, dear think rethink for your reply.

Now, please bear with my repetition:

My position is that man indeed by his nature acts rationally, otherwise mankind would not be able to communicate among themselves at all; but there are recurrences of irrational behavior with men, like for example, in men's undertaking of wars.

Now, I like to ask you to explain your post reproduced as follows below, with enumeration from me for our convenience in pointing to which statements from you we are talking about.

You say:
My Item A.: Please help me to understand your statements No. 4 and No. 5.

My Item B.: From you statements Nos. 1, 2, and 3, am I correct that you mean to tell me that all man's acts are rational even in undertaking wars?

So, please, attend to my item A. and item B., for otherwise I can't make head nor tail with your post.

Note that that 'I' which 'agrees with me' is equally likely to be as transient as any other since 'identities come and go'. !

[I could give you references to the literature on the impermanence of self , or the limits of 'logic', or the inevitable coexistence of contradictions, but I'll leave that up to you.]