We Never Know
No Slack
Be it god, politics, people being gay, or transgender, or race, or wealth, etc..
Does taking things on a personal level interfere with rationality?
Does taking things on a personal level interfere with rationality?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
rationality and taking things on a personal level
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
By 'taking things', do you mean things like aspirin?
Are we talking kleptomania?
Running a removal service?
They all seem within the bounds of rationality to me, though one of them wouldn't usually be thought within the bounds of morality.
We Never Know
No Slack
Many comedians out of work and here you are trying to be one. Find a new profession lol
In asking this question, it is worth remembering that rationality is not appropriate in many situations and that humans are not fundamentally rational animals to begin with.
We Never Know
No Slack
Yet here they are judged often by their posts if whether they are rational thinking or not.
Of course. We live in a post-Enlightenment culture as well as one that is strongly influenced by the myth of human superiority. Some were more influenced by that through their upbringing than others. It is seen as something to deeply value and aspire to - an ideal to worship in a fashion. Not a terrible choice as far as abstract deified principles to worship goes... but like any god it has its downsides.
We Never Know
No Slack
Which leads back to this...
Does taking things on a personal level interfere with rationality?
Curses! Discovered!
Gargovic Malkav
Well-Known Member
It's a popular thought and I think it can even be considered etiquette to differentiate between opinions and the individuals expressing them.
I find it difficult and somewhat irrational to do that; As if an opinion doesn't say anything about the person expressing it.
That said, I think I'm going to need more clues than a singular, dislikeable opinion to be able tell whether I like someone or not.
I find it difficult and somewhat irrational to do that; As if an opinion doesn't say anything about the person expressing it.
That said, I think I'm going to need more clues than a singular, dislikeable opinion to be able tell whether I like someone or not.
I mean, if you are personally invested in a particular position, it might be harder to take criticism because you take the criticism of your position as a personal insult. I’m sure that interferes with rationality
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Here is a rational consideration involving that my answer to your question depends on what I take for granted that rationality is.
So I could answer yes or no. But I could also answer that I reject your question because the framing is to over-reductive. I.e. that for all contexts there is no one rational method and rational changes depending on what is at play and how that is viewed.
Here is an example as related to your question. The is-ought problem. How I answer what is, might not be the same rationality as how I answer what I ought to do.
So it depends on how someone understands rationality.
Last edited:
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
Is there any other way to take it, except on a personal level?
If not, we wouldn't even notice, or care, or interact in any way, to 'take things'
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Rationality isn't really quantifiable and relies on a foundation of personal values.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "taking things on a personal level" here. If you mean taking personal offence at something then that probably isn't rational as it's an emotional response. If you mean having a personal investment in a cause (e.g. gay rights) then that can absolutely be rational, depending on your core values. If you work from the starting position that all people should be treated equally, then aiming to ensure gay people have the same rights as everybody else is probably a rational approach. If you work from the starting position that society should emulate a tradition that takes a dim view on homosexuality, then denying gay people the same rights as everybody else is probably a rational approach.
Remember that rational and good are not the same thing.
A lot of people seem to fall into the trap of thinking that we'd overcome so many societal ills if only people would be more rational. That's not really true as the rational course of action can vary wildly depending on which values you begin with. For example, is self-preservation more or less rational than aiming for the greater good? Either of those positions can produce entirely rational but fundamentally opposed approaches to politics, religion and personal conduct.
Personally, I think that rationality can be a useful tool but I don't view it as a way of life. Sometimes an emotional or intuitive approach is more appropriate than a purely rational one.
I suppose it can interfere with an objective discussion. For example, if someone opines that sobriety checkpoints are wrong, and someone responds "My _____ was killed by a drunk driver," then the discussion turns into an emotional one. In such a context, it's no longer possible to have a rational, objective discussion, since one has to walk on eggs to avoid upsetting someone.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Yes.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You bring up an important point... On one hand, too much emotional involvement can make one impervious to rational arguments, however on the other, no emotional involvement can lead one to speaking from an ivory tower.
Yes. Surely, you've noticed that some posters get
angry over disagreement, & lash out at the person.
This is taking something personally, & then worsening
things by making it personal for the other poster.
We can all endeavor to avoid this.
Sit back....breathe calmly....consciously decide to
be at peace....& address the issues with civility.
Don't allow rational civil discourse to descend into.....
Last edited:
I think there might be a middle ground somewhere, balancing the needs of society, the rights of citizens, as well as empathy for others.
But I've also heard those who believe that any kind of personal, emotional involvement could cloud one's professional judgment. Also, the idea that "it's not personal, it's strictly business" can be called into question.
I believe it to be a better policy to suppress and subordinate one's own personal feelings and emotions in order to make more rational, objective judgments - at least in matters of public policy which affect society as a whole.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
But necessarily taking into consideration others' feelings. Would you agree?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Only if it's emotional..