Freedomain Radio

Well, what I got from the Misesian idea you talked about was that actions are chosen through rational thought in order to meet certain ends.  So, irrational actions must be chosen through rational thought in order to meet certain ends.  What are those ends ?

Ah I see. The ends in and of themselves could be irrational but the acting to meet the ends is a rational process. There could be an almost infinite number of examples, like the moving to Arizona to avoid hot weather one I posted above. Does that make sense? I'm thinking along a subjective theory of value line, but I could be thinking to loosely. 

I'd say that that's an example of an irrational action, but the end is still hidden (it's not avoiding hot weather).

I'm sorry, I don't get it. What is the hidden end?

Well, it could be as simple as wanting to appear stupid to others (who would go to Arizona to avoid hot weather, after all).  There are other ends, I'm sure.

I'm not sure it follows. You are imposing hypotheticals on an artificial, purposefully static example. I'm confused as to what your objection is to; that people act irrationally, have irrational ends, or use rational processes to carry them out. Maybe that would help clear up the confusion.

jimmy:

I have trouble with this concept, as laid out so clearly by Rand. Is the act of choice not a rational act, even though we may disagree with the intended ends?

I think rationality is overrated.

Granted, some kind of rational thought or action is probably necessary to function healthily as a human being.  This doesn't mean however that a human being must be 100% rational, which i don't believe is humanly possible.