And I told you above:
To me rational means something that can be demonstrated to be true for all of us. Going all the way back to an understanding of why there is something and not nothing. And why it is this something and not another.
And then the extent to which these descriptions are or are not only that which we were ever able to convey in what may or may not be a wholly determined universe.
Determined or non-determined would appear to have nothing to do with the meaning of ‘rational’.
Note to others:
Can any of you make sense of this? How does one discuss the question of human autonomy without bringing it out into the world that we live in? Without making at least some attempt to differentiate between that which is deemed to be or not to be rational thinking, feeling, saying and doing?
What really important point here is he trying to yank me in the general direction of understanding? And how is that point in turn yanked down from the clouds of abstraction and rendered meaningful to the lives that we live?
To me rational means something that can be demonstrated to be true for all of us.
I will assume that by “something” you mean thoughts and actions since objects can’t have the property of being rational.
I mean that in the minds of all of us are things that we believe are true and things that we claim to know. And as long as you don’t interact with others, you can go to the grave smugly believing and knowing these things.
Though, sure, for some there’s the part about God. The part where He judges what you think you believe and know on the other side of the grave.
Now, as soon as you interact with others, however, there’s the possibility that what you think you believe and know is not what they think they believe and know.
So, for all practical purposes, what else is there but our capacity to demonstrate [in whatever manner] that which it appears all rational men and women would seem to be obligated to believe and know. How else could we possibly interact socially, politically and economically in the least dysfunctional manner?
But then we’ll still need a context, right?
It’s just that on this thread there is also a discussion revolving around whether any of these posts were ever able to be anything other than what they are.
For example, reconfigured given that at the time of posting we could have freely chosen to change our minds about something and posted something else entirely.
Right away, you have the problem with ‘demonstrations’. It’s difficult to demonstrate a lot of things. For example, you can’t demonstrate advanced mathematics and science to people who are not intelligent enough to understand it, even if those people can be considered ‘rational’ in every respect. So who are you demonstrating it to? Other mathematicians and scientists. Right? The demonstration is only accessible to a small group.
True. Some things are considerably more difficult to demonstrate than others. But my point is that in the either/or world a demonstration is always possible. Why? Because the objective truth is either one thing or another. Then it’s just a question of a mind like Newton’s reconfiguring historically into a mind like Einstein’s reconfiguring historically in a mind like…?
Ah, but then there’s the is/ought world, right?
Also, it’s usually difficult to demonstrate perfectly ordinary events. If I say that I say a deer on the road today, then without photographs, video or other witnesses, I have no way to demonstrate it. Does it mean that it’s an ‘irrational’ statement? No.
I have addressed this point before. Yes, even in the either/or world we would still need a God around. And that is precisely because mere mortals are not themselves omniscient. There are any number of perfectly rational beliefs that are beyond our demonstrating.
For example, look at how many juries believed that sending someone to death row was the right thing to do because they believed he was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Then it was determined later [with new evidence] that he is innocent.
Mere mortals will always be constricted in this sense. But the crucial point [mine] is that there is in fact an objective truth able to be determined by the right minds in the right set of circumstances. Joe was murdered or he wasn’t. Jim committed the murder or he didn’t. The fact that different people have conflicting beliefs about it doesn’t make the truth go away. But that’s why Gods need to be invented. He knows EVERYTHING!
But let’s shift the discussion back to the deer. The deer in the road having been intentionlly shot and killed by a hunter instead accidentally by a car. Is the killing and consumption of deer a rational behavior? What might be the objective truth here?
Then there is the difference between true/false statements and rational/irrational statements. A rational statement may well be false.
Okay, but we will still need an actual context in order to substantiate what we think we believe or know.
Going all the way back to an understanding of why there is something and not nothing. And why it is this something and not another.
Again, that seems to have nothing to do with meaning of ‘rational’.
I can only assume here that you are making a point that is beyond my comprehending.
The word rational came into existence here on planet earth when the human brain evolved to the point where it could find that word useful in subsisting from day to day. Do this, don’t do that if you want to stick around. And then eventually the minds of men evolved to the point where philosophy was invented and the word rational became a component in the epistemologists toolbox. The part embedded in all of the discussions here: scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ra … i=scholart
But how on earth [and throughout the rest of the universe] could this not somehow be connected to an understanding of why there is something instead of nothing, and why it is this something and not another?