What Is Rationality? Can a Primary Value Be Irrational?

[davedan]

Why would someone want to be homeless?

Well they could be good christians: "the birds have the trees and the lillies have the fields but  the son of man has nowhere to rest his head"

Some people do like living outdoors. It is after all how our ancestors lived.

[Jack Mann]

Reminds me of a guy I gave a ride to a while back.  My neighbor had seen him at the library, reading, and they got to talking.  He travels the country.  His income nominally comes from panning for gold.  He goes where he knows the gold is when the season is right for it.  He doesn't find a huge amount, but he doesn't have a lot of needs, and when he's traveling around, a lot of people give him things.  Had a little chihuahua with him that he kept in his jacket, both of which were gifts from people he'd encountered by chance.  He mostly camped outside, knew enough woodcraft to stay alive in the woods or the desert, so long as he had supplies.

He wanted a ride out west, so my neighbor remembered I was visiting my folks for Christmas, and called me up.  I owed the neighbor a pretty big favor, so I agreed.  It was an interesting ride, and he had a lot of fun stories and odd ideas.

I'll tell you, I still kept an eye on his stabbin' hand, just in case.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I'll tell you, I still kept an eye on his stabbin' hand, just in case.

Nothin' beats the hobo life, stabbin' folks with my hobo knife...

[SpaceProg]

A woman named Janice once said: "Freedom's just another word for 'nothin' left to lose'"

[TheReasonator]

@OP: You're hitting on the same problem I was talking about in the morality thread, i.e. How do you judge a primary value? Can they be evaluated objectively?

In the other thread you said yes, while in this one you seem to be saying no.

I'm just trying to provoke thought.

[Yla]

@OP: You're hitting on the same problem I was talking about in the morality thread, i.e. How do you judge a primary value? Can they be evaluated objectively?

In the other thread you said yes, while in this one you seem to be saying no.

I'm just trying to provoke thought.

An admirable goal. We just wish you would think about it yourself for a bit before you post it so it doesn't come out as wharrgarble. Or the question is trivial (like your thread about social activism and determinism).

To your question:
In your example, the man is behaving rationally in pursuing his values, though suboptimally. There are better and more pleasant ways to lose money than a casino. It is nevertheless rational, because he is reasoning why he is going there.

You proclaimed primary values to be axiomatic. In that case, rationality just doesn't apply. They are neither rational nor irrational, only arational. Don't forget though, that axioms can still be wrong, but right now I can't think of how in this case.

Now suppose an otherwise regular person who is addicted to gambling. He also goes to a casino. Is the addiction a 'primary value' and therefore axiomatic and not subject to reasoning? Going to the casino therefore a rational act in fulfilling his addiction?

I dispute the addiction being a, as you call it, primary value. The man is not in control, not acting rationally. I'm not willing to make a call whether it is irrational as is. But would he be capable of acting rationally, it would be irrational, so it is, according to my own primary values of empathy and not coming to harm, rational to stop him for his own good.

[Cataclysm]

Rational:
sqrt(1) = 1
Irrational:
sqrt(-1) = i

That's not irrational, that's imaginary. Irrational would be like 2^0.5 or pi

OK, nitpick time: any number that is not rational is irrational. i is as irrational as sqrt(2) or pi, because none can be expressed as the quotient of two integers.

No, irrational numbers are a subsection of real numbers, so they can't be imaginary.

[dpareja]

Rational:
sqrt(1) = 1
Irrational:
sqrt(-1) = i

That's not irrational, that's imaginary. Irrational would be like 2^0.5 or pi

OK, nitpick time: any number that is not rational is irrational. i is as irrational as sqrt(2) or pi, because none can be expressed as the quotient of two integers.

No, irrational numbers are a subsection of real numbers, so they can't be imaginary.

Oops. Brain fart. I stand corrected. I was thinking of other things when I wrote that (specifically, the assumptions in the Gel'fond-Schneider Theorem).

[TheReasonator]

I dispute the addiction being a, as you call it, primary value. The man is not in control, not acting rationally. I'm not willing to make a call whether it is irrational as is. But would he be capable of acting rationally, it would be irrational, so it is, according to my own primary values of empathy and not coming to harm, rational to stop him for his own good.

The addict and non-addict both have equally unfree will. In both cases their behavior is because of a combination of brain chemistry and how that chemistry interacts with the environment.
Think of something you really love and do often. The only way you choose to do otherwise is if other concerns outweigh that thing enough for you to make the decision. Even if hypothetically you choose to act according to things that concern you less and ignore your bigger concerns in order to prove free will to yourself then you have proven nothing because your concern of proving free will has outweighed your other concerns.
If a person is addicted to something they value it, even if they are at a point where they don't even enjoy it and are only avoiding pain they still value not having the pain and for someone to get over an addiction requires the person to effectively come to value things more than the pleasure of their addiction or avoiding the pain of withdrawal. What makes the brain chemistry and how it interacts in the environment better or worse? It's not whether the person is free, none of us are free. We judge it as better or worse based on our perception.
Force tends to make people resistant, because all people desire power over their own lives and for their own values to prevail. But the case can be made to an addict that they will be happier without their addiction and indeed many addicts do check in to rehab voluntarily.

EDIT:
As to empathy to truly exercise empathy one must respect the other person's point of view and values and not expect other people to be in conformity to ones own values except when they are infringing against you such as for example if you were taking care of an addict who is costing you a fortune and put your foot down that they quit for good.
"Harm" may be different to different people.

[Yla]

I dispute the addiction being a, as you call it, primary value. The man is not in control, not acting rationally. I'm not willing to make a call whether it is irrational as is. But would he be capable of acting rationally, it would be irrational, so it is, according to my own primary values of empathy and not coming to harm, rational to stop him for his own good.

The addict and non-addict both have equally unfree will. In both cases their behavior is because of a combination of brain chemistry and how that chemistry interacts with the environment.
Think of something you really love and do often. The only way you choose to do otherwise is if other concerns outweigh that thing enough for you to make the decision. Even if hypothetically you choose to act according to things that concern you less and ignore your bigger concerns in order to prove free will to yourself then you have proven nothing because your concern of proving free will has outweighed your other concerns.
If a person is addicted to something they value it, even if they are at a point where they don't even enjoy it and are only avoiding pain they still value not having the pain and for someone to get over an addiction requires the person to effectively come to value things more than the pleasure of their addiction or avoiding the pain of withdrawal. What makes the brain chemistry and how it interacts in the environment better or worse? It's not whether the person is free, none of us are free. We judge it as better or worse based on our perception.
Force tends to make people resistant, because all people desire power over their own lives and for their own values to prevail. But the case can be made to an addict that they will be happier without their addiction and indeed many addicts do check in to rehab voluntarily.

EDIT:
As to empathy to truly exercise empathy one must respect the other person's point of view and values and not expect other people to be in conformity to ones own values except when they are infringing against you such as for example if you were taking care of an addict who is costing you a fortune and put your foot down that they quit for good.
"Harm" may be different to different people.

The existence of free will is a presupposition of your original question. For terms like rationality and values to have meaning requires our minds to actually freely think and not be patient illusions of neurochemistry.
Don't contradict yourself. Or ask traps.

And in general, bringing the free will vs. brain chemistry issue up in discussions that were not originally about it is constructive in very few cases. It's a bit like solipsism. It's like multiplying an equation with zero. It's a valid argument, but abandon all hope to ever get a meaningful result later.

Edit: Provoking thought is admirable, but I prefer there to be a fucking point to it and not just aimlessly wandering through sophistic fog.

[Distind]

Rational:
sqrt(1) = 1
Irrational:
sqrt(-1) = i

That's not irrational, that's imaginary. Irrational would be like 2^0.5 or pi

Damn, I had those reversed. It's been a while.

[TheReasonator]

The existence of free will is a presupposition of your original question. For terms like rationality and values to have meaning requires our minds to actually freely think and not be patient illusions of neurochemistry.

Not so. Whether our will is free or not we still have values even if our values are essentially a consequence of our interactions with the environment or from our deepest instinctual feelings of how things should be which would be from genetics/in utero effects. Do you really think the way people think things ought to be and the way things should be done (which is what values are) comes from nowhere?

A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. Hence, "rationality" clearly exists whether the information one considers when reasoning and the goal or problem one goes after are predetermined or not the person is still being rational or attempting to be rational in achieving a certain goal or problem.

As to brain chemistry, I see no problems arising from that. Our thoughts aren't separate from the Universe. It's not that our thoughts, values, beliefs,... are illusions they are simply the way in which we perceive what is physically constituted as those chemicals in our brain. It's no more an illusion than taste, sight, hearing,... is an illusion.

Even without brain chemistry everything necessarily comes from something and if it didn't that's indeterminacy/randomness not "free will". And it's clear if you look at how people behave that their decisions have reasons. You don't want a new tv and so put on a tuxedo and head to the beach to count the sand. You don't randomly switch to saying different things in conversations. The fact that we don't just babble and our words have consistency with meanings shows determinism.