A poem I wrote. *The State of The World* By Dragonstar

[tetsuo]

Everything you are describing reminds me of what American democracy was supposed to be.


Anyway, both of our systems requires the work of rational individuals. Yours is a top-down approach, based on social engineering and organization. Mine is more haphazard, and is based on individuals making rational decisions for themselves, with very little organization.

To be free, a person must understand oneself. To understand oneself, a person must understand others. In this way, I define a rational person as "someone who can identify himself in others."

How do you define a rational person? I ask this, because I think this is the reason why our ideas are so different.

[dragonstar]

Our ideas are very similar. It's just that mine has managers and a support system to propagate logic and reason.

I define a rational person as a person that thinks about the consequences of their actions and how it will affect those around them. A person that doesn't lock themselves within a biased way of thinking and remains open-minded towards other ideas.

Around the age of 19 I finally began to have an open mind. (I'm 23 btw)

[tetsuo]

I guess our goals are pretty similair, although we still go about them in different ways

I just have trouble believing that an individual can make rational decisions in a world where reason is a commodity, owned and taught by the government. Hopefully I can explain this ...

I believe it is fallacious to see reason as an object that exists outside the individual. I don't believe reason and logic are the answers to our problems. Surely our leaders are not intellectually challenged. They certainly use "reason" when they write new laws and regulations. The problem is, they don't see others (the ones negatively affected) as rational individuals who can make these decisions on their own. One does not need to be intelligent to be rational. So whether someone is educated or not, they can certainly act rationally if they see themselves in the goals and dreams of others. (which goes back to my original definition of what I believe a rational individual is).

Your system might be effective in educating the people. But I don't believe it can solve the bigger issues. Any individual under the control of another, cannot act rationally, because they are not being treated rationally. They have essentialy lost their individuality, and thus any decision they make, whether the result is good or not, isn't being made using true reaon and pure intention.

To be more clear, hopefully. There is reason that comes from intellect (I believe this is "your" reason), the kind that is taught to us, which we use to solve non-social problems. And there is reason that comes from being. We use this when making moral decisions. It is foolproof, because we only have to look to how we would treat ourselves. (of couse it's more than that, but I'm probably not expressing myself properly, so I'll just leave it at that)

TL;DR You use reason as a means to an end. For me, reason IS the end, with individuality as the means to that end (in some manner of speaking)

I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative, I just need a place to flesh out my ideas. I was around 18/19 when I first started thinking about stuff like this. I'm 21 now.

[dragonstar]

I don't believe reason and logic are the answers to our problems. Surely our leaders are not intellectually challenged. They certainly use "reason" when they write new laws and regulations. The problem is, they don't see others (the ones negatively affected) as rational individuals who can make these decisions on their own

My system isn't perfect. :P But you wouldn't have to worry about lobbying and grand-scale corruption in my system. Our "leaders" usually want to make the better decisions but are bought out by wealthy elites that finance their campaigns.

We humans need guides in terms of how to think effectively. If there's none, then chaos is inevitable. Humans are creatures of reason. To say, "reason is the end" is to deny yourself of yourself. We need to be taught how to reason effectively in order to have a more efficient society.

To be more clear, hopefully. There is reason that comes from intellect (I believe this is "your" reason), the kind that is taught to us, which we use to solve non-social problems. And there is reason that comes from being. We use this when making moral decisions. It is foolproof, because we only have to look to how we would treat ourselves. (of couse it's more than that, but I'm probably not expressing myself properly, so I'll just leave it at that)

I won't go as far to say it's foolproof. Say you meet a group of people that think honor killings are the best way in which to deal with a woman who sleeps with another man outside of marriage. (This really exists btw) People like these have to be taught how to think effectively. If there's a system in place to teach them, those ways of thinking would become practically extinct. The person would still have their individual rights and ideas, but will then use it in a productive manner.

I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative

Lol no. That's the problem with text. You can't see the other 97% of communication (Words are about 3% of communication.)

We're just debating like civilized people. ^_^

[tetsuo]

Our "leaders" usually want to make the better decisions but are bought out by wealthy elites that finance their campaigns.

Really? Most of our "leaders" are simply idealogues with an unnatural amount of power and influence.

You say humans are creatures of reason, yet we still need to be taught how to think effectively? That would make us creatures of education. Again, this is assuming there is a right and wrong way to formulate ideas. To think of moral reasoning as one would a mathetical equation, reduces ethical problems to mere logical accountancy. Forcing us to think of morality as something outside of ourselves. By doing this, we lose our free will and individuality, as well as reducing the overall power and importance of moral thinking. Saying reason comes from outside of us, or that it needs to be coaxed out of the masses, implies there is an omnipotent group that possesses flawless reasoning. Who possesses this perfect knowledge? Do you trust education with this widespread social experiment? Why don't our current education systems work to stop the actions that you find irrational?

Why are honor killings wrong? Because the perpertrator "used the wrong way of thinking" to come to the conclusion that the offender should be killed. Or is it because taking another persons life is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the thought processes behind the action?

It is pure knowledge, not empricial knowledge, that is used to solve moral problems. Pure knowledge comes from understanding oneself to be a rational being. To treat others with respect,is to treat yourself with respect. One who harms others, has no respect for reason.

To say, "reason is the end" is to deny yourself of yourself

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

p.s. If I had to guess, I'd say you come from a science/technology/engineering background.

[dragonstar]

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

p.s. If I had to guess, I'd say you come from a science/technology/engineering background.

I came to that conclusion from seeing how other groups of people operate when left completely to their own devices. Yes my way is more of a "guide the individual towards the correct path" approach. To give you an example of what I mean, there are currently people in this world that have institutionalized the killing and torture of homosexuals. Is it right to do this? Well the people doing it feel it's the right thing. (The ones influenced by culture that is.)

By guiding the mind in the way I describe, there is still free will but a more rational free will. So in a sense yes.

One would be educated not indoctrinated.

[tetsuo]

To give you an example of what I mean, there are currently people in this world that have institutionalized the killing and torture of homosexuals. Is it right to do this? Well the people doing it feel it's the right thing. (The ones influenced by culture that is.)

These people allow outside influences to guide their morality (If it isn't the State itself that has outlawed homosexuality, as some nations have done). Education won't change them, especially if their culture is heavily influenced by religion, or if it is the states doing.

All of the examples you have been using come from developing nations with oppressive state control. In third world countries, one can hardly blame the people for these types of crimes, as they are usually the victims. This type of negative culture can only persist when sanctioned by the state. When people are free to travel and do business as they wish, culture evolves as different types of people intermingle with one another. Is it fair to blame these "irrational" people for being forced to follow an antiquated culture? It's not like they have a choice.

[jpelirrojo]

Our ideas are very similar. It's just that mine has managers and a support system to propagate logic and reason.

I define a rational person as a person that thinks about the consequences of their actions and how it will affect those around them. A person that doesn't lock themselves within a biased way of thinking and remains open-minded towards other ideas.

Around the age of 19 I finally began to have an open mind. (I'm 23 btw)

That's not true philosofically talking. What you said is the definition of an empirical subject according to Immanuel Kant (metaphysic).

The rational person is the one who has a will to do the things, has a desire and as its consequance he tend to do what he want. Taking a rational subject to the most extreme way of thinking... that person will do what he wants over all the inconveniences.

I totally agree with that definition. Metaphisic shows us a way of thinking objectively (it's not in one of the extrems as rationalism and epiricalism), it remains in the medium of the path (not the pathos of Nietzsche xDD just another path xDD)

Sorry I have to bring up my oppinion because you were expressing your and i thought it would be nice to know about your arguments or somehow you defend your idea. That is not rational is cosmopolitan or open-minded.

PD: English it's not my first language.

[tetsuo]

That's not true philosofically talking. What you said is the definition of an empirical subject according to Immanuel Kant (metaphysic).

A Rationalist believes that reality, and as such our perceptions, are competly true (or that there is "truth"). Reality, ethics, mathematics, politics, are all based on logic, scientific. An Empiricist, is the opposite, knowledge (truth) comes from our experienceres. Are you sure he's describing an empricial subject here? It looks more like a non-philosophical definition of "rationalism" to me.

I think he is on the right path, but I don't know if he is a hard Rationalist or Empiricist. He's probably more like Kant, at least that's what I get when I reread this thread.

By the way Kant's doctrine is called Transendental idealism (that mixture of Rationalism/Empiricism you talk about). Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to study being and existence. Transendental idealism is part of the the study of Metaphysics. Metaphysics itself isn't a Kantian invention.

[jpelirrojo]

A Rationalist believes that reality, and as such our perceptions, are competly true (or that there is "truth"). Reality, ethics, mathematics, politics, are all based on logic, scientific. An Empiricist, is the opposite, knowledge (truth) comes from our experienceres. Are you sure he's describing an empricial subject here? It looks more like a non-philosophical definition of "rationalism" to me.

I think he is on the right path, but I don't know if he is a hard Rationalist or Empiricist. He's probably more like Kant, at least that's what I get when I reread this thread.

By the way Kant's doctrine is called Transendental idealism (that mixture of Rationalism/Empiricism you talk about). Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to study being and existence. Transendental idealism is part of the the study of Metaphysics. Metaphysics itself isn't a Kantian invention.

yeah in this aspect I committed a mistake. I did not mean Metaphysics, I meant trascendental idealism which is on a medium way between empirichal and rationalism (as you remarked in oyur previous thread). Well according to Kant, inside and putting appart all that aspects wich involves the classifying of all the things in our reality, a strong will of power (not Nietzsche applied word) means a person who does not mind the consequences of his/her acts because this person only wants to fulfill that thing (that is in his mind). Well, the point of view I talked you about is the most radical, when talking about behaviour and modals ("maxima"), of Kant's rationalism idea. As well as there are extreme way of thinking in rationalism, there is also another related to empirichal knowledge. The empirichal one consist of calculating the concequances of each of your performances. this implies a totally opposite way of thinking to rationalism.

Yeah I said I confused the Trascendental idealism with metaphysics... but just the name. I think the concept of metaphysic is clearly quite far, when comes to explaining or describing it, from Trascendental Idealism.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy wich studies the most non-realistic things such as the existence of the sould as well as the origin of human being but in a more philosophycal approach. Literally translated, it means " far away from the physics" and its origin is related to one of the most famous rationalist greek philosophers (I think is Platon).
But the most famous part of the metaphysics, in general talking, is the german one. With an important participation of Immanuel Kant (who in a moment said something like this: "you can learn to philosophize but a philosopher must have been born") when describing the reality of the world itself. I mean, when he showed us that in knowledege, there is a non-variable part (the subject who is starting to know) and a variable one which is the object we are observing in order to know. This aspect is related to metaphysics.
But to show you that from the very beginning I did not that (metaphysics) I will also talk to you about the studies or observations of Kant on human society as well as its way of behaving in society. Yeah, he talked about ethical knowledge (in this "field" he made important contributions) and he pinted that the only the best people in the world should domine in it because their behaviour is the most indicated (imagining all of them are good persons, intellgent...) to make the world better.

To this last part I referred to: ethical. Your previous discussion with dragonstar, the moment I interrupted LOL you were talking about ,what it seemed to me , ethics.