Reply
Sat 9 Sep, 2006 05:43 am
Re: To dominate or to serve, there is the rub
coberst wrote:To be rational in one's desires is to use intellectual standards of thinking and to be irrational in one's desires is to use egocentric standards to determine what to accept or what to reject as true.
From this, it follows that intellectual = not egocentric. Would you say that history bears out this statement?
Re: To dominate or to serve, there is the rub
Shapeless wrote:coberst wrote:To be rational in one's desires is to use intellectual standards of thinking and to be irrational in one's desires is to use egocentric standards to determine what to accept or what to reject as true.
From this, it follows that intellectual = not egocentric. Would you say that history bears out this statement?
Rational thinking = not egocentric behavior. I would say that history bears this out. I do not agree with your summation of my statement.
You're mapping "rational" onto "intellectual standards" and "not rational" onto "egocentric standards," which means you're putting intellectual standards into opposition with egocentric standards. According to your model, to use intellectual standards is to not use egocentric standards, unless a standard can be rational and irrational at the same time.
As it happens, I don't agree with this binary either, but it is implied by what you posted. It makes we wonder if, for example, you would consider Plato's notion of the perfect State to be up to par with rational standards, and whether you also consider the concept of the philosopher-king to be not egocentric.
Shapless
Plato's Republic is certainly up to rational standards if one starts with the assumption that people will be happier in a state in which there is security and only slow change. I suspect that with little understanding of history one could be easily convinced that a philosopher-king is a good idea, rationally and is not egocentric.
coberst wrote:I suspect that with little understanding of history one could be easily convinced that a philosopher-king is a good idea, rationally and is not egocentric.
Indeed. I know of too many people who fall into this category. They are easily convinced of ideas because of the way they are presented, with no regard to what they might look like in practice. I can never tell whether this refusal to measure theory against practice is deliberate. In many cases I suspect it is.
Coberst
By your definition above I'd say that some of the ideals of the western societies are irrational, in that they urge us to pursuit endeavors that are of use to none but ourselves.
In it's most extreme form this is clearly visible. Plastic surgery, idol worship in the form of pop stars and other distinguished individuals...
Few of us are motivated by a desire to serve anyone but ourselves. I'd say it is irrational, but I bet that the percentage of the population that agrees with me is a small number.
Cyracuz wrote:Coberst
By your definition above I'd say that some of the ideals of the western societies are irrational, in that they urge us to pursuit endeavors that are of use to none but ourselves.
In it's most extreme form this is clearly visible. Plastic surgery, idol worship in the form of pop stars and other distinguished individuals...
Few of us are motivated by a desire to serve anyone but ourselves. I'd say it is irrational, but I bet that the percentage of the population that agrees with me is a small number.
Egocentric and sociocentric motivated urges are what drives most of our irrational behavior.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace