Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:40 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.

That is not true.

The words "rational“ and "rationalization“ have the same root. What you are saying is that, for example, all enlightenment is "deceptive“. And that is - of course - not true.

Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example, are deceptive.

I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:49 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.

So you do not kill insects?

Do you live according Ecamndu’s "rule“? :)

Ecmandu wrote:Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

I do not have an emotional need to kill insects and if I did then I would have to rationalize my emotional needs.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:50 am

One Liner wrote:I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment.

You really do not know what "enlightenment" means?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:55 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment.

You really do not know what "enlightenment" means?

I didn't say... I don't know what enlightenment means.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:56 am

One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.

So you do not kill insects?

Do you live according Ecamndu’s "rule“? :)

Ecmandu wrote:Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

I do not have an emotional need to kill insects and if I did then I would have to rationalize my emotional needs.

And there could be good reasons (for example healthy reasons) too to rationalize your motive(s).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:58 am

One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment.

You really do not know what "enlightenment" means?

I didn't say... I don't know what enlightenment means.

Okay.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:59 am

One Liner wrote:Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:13 pm

One Liner wrote:
One Liner wrote:Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.

Again: That is not true.

If you good reasons (for example healthy reasons) to rationalize your motive(s) foir killing insects, for example ( by the way: it was your example) , then this rationalization is not deceptive.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:31 pm

You forgot to mention why good health was a good reason.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:48 pm

One Liner wrote:You forgot to mention why good health was a good reason.

Health is always a good reason. It is good resp. okay and especially healthy to be self-preservative. No living being is capable of living without self-preservation. Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings (for example: insects)?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:59 pm

You are making the statement that your health/life is more important than the health/life of an insect without any good reason.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:12 pm

One Liner wrote:You are making the statement that your health/life is more important than the health/life of an insect without any good reason.

That’s right. And if you asked that insect and were capable of understanding its answer, then you would soon know that the insect would make the same statement as I do.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:59 pm

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:You are making the statement that your health/life is more important than the health/life of an insect without any good reason.

That’s right. And if you asked that insect and were capable of understanding its answer, then you would soon know that the insect would make the same statement as I do.

How is any rationilzation of killing each other based on this knowledge not deceptive?
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:51 pm

Like I said: Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you again: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings?

If you did not preserve your life, you would just die.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:37 am

Arminius wrote:Like I said: Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you again: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings?

If you did not preserve your life, you would just die.

Yes, I will die despite all of my efforts to preserve my life and no amount of killing other people or other animals will preserve my life.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:49 am

One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:Like I said: Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you again: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings?

If you did not preserve your life, you would just die.

Yes, I will die despite all of my efforts to preserve my life and no amount of killing other people or other animals will preserve my life.

:-k
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:47 am

Arminius wrote:But does the word "rationalization" not also have a positive meaning? I know, the psychologization has changed the meaning of the word "rationalization", but the word had a different meaning before that psychologization. I prefer the non-psychologized meaning of the word "rationalization". Or is this not any longer possible in English? Am I now not "welcomed" to the psycholgism club? :wink:

In an effort to be rational, I suspect that you should stick to this definition for "rationalization" in English:
Noun 1. rationalisation - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

The educated and rational man knows that it is the negative connotation of every nuance that is given higher priority regardless of the intent of the speaker.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:54 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:Like I said: Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you again: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings?

If you did not preserve your life, you would just die.

Yes, I will die despite all of my efforts to preserve my life and no amount of killing other people or other animals will preserve my life.

:-k

Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called "meaning of life" (which is a rationilzation in itself).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:05 am

One Liner wrote:Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called "meaning of life" (which is a rationilzation in itself).

There is still a difference between a rationalization and an explanation. Self-preservation is possibly the only explanation that isn't a rationalization.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:42 am

Self preservation isn't rationalized but life IS self preservation is (there is a difference between the two).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:36 pm

One Liner wrote:Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called "meaning of life" (which is a rationilzation in itself).

No.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby UrGod » Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:42 pm

Self-preservation is merely incidental, not primarily or meaningfully significant. You simply need to happen to keep existing if you're going to have meaningful experiences, but "existing" and "survival instinct" (which actually doesn't even exist) are just unrelated conditions that are necessary for actually significant things.

Life didn't evolve and develop because it needed or wanted to survive. Life doesn't even "want" to survive, it simply tends to act in certain ways that over time and a large enough sample size don't end up leading it into non-existence. This is a consequence of embedded instinctual frameworks that causally determine what life does and why, in the presence of certain stimuli.

As Parodites said, when you eat your jaw muscles are simply engaged in a kind of non-conscious spasm that has simply been refined over millions of years of natural selection to do a decent job of actually tearing up whatever you put in your mouth. It's not teleological.

Or as Nietzsche said, we don't eat because we are hungry, we are hungry because we eat.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:52 pm

Wyld wrote:Self-preservation is merely incidental, not primarily or meaningfully significant. You simply need to happen to keep existing if you're going to have meaningful experiences, but "existing" and "survival instinct" (which actually doesn't even exist) are just unrelated conditions that are necessary for actually significant things.

Life didn't evolve and develop because it needed or wanted to survive. Life doesn't even "want" to survive, it simply tends to act in certain ways that over time and a large enough sample size don't end up leading it into non-existence. This is a consequence of embedded instinctual frameworks that causally determine what life does and why, in the presence of certain stimuli.

As Parodites said, when you eat your jaw muscles are simply engaged in a kind of non-conscious spasm that has simply been refined over millions of years of natural selection to do a decent job of actually tearing up whatever you put in your mouth. It's not teleological.

Or as Nietzsche said, we don't eat because we are hungry, we are hungry because we eat.

Dude.... don't take the mask off. Preserve the habitat.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby One Liner » Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:06 pm

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called "meaning of life" (which is a rationilzation in itself).

No.

Your "no" is just a rationilzation and nothing more.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Rationalizing: How do we know for sure that we aren't?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Aug 08, 2016 7:27 pm

One Liner

I do not have an emotional need to kill insects and if I did then I would have to rationalize my emotional needs.

I think that what you would be doing is trying to justify your "reasons" for having them.
We all have emotional needs. Nothing wrong with that.

I think that rationalizations evolve into "right reasons" or reasoning when we're able to honestly look below the surface to what is "really" happening.
I think that we may be aware that we're rationalizing when what we hear are ad continuum "excuses" rather than real reasons.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14945
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]