Freedomain Radio

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? 

Why would choice in itself be rational (i.e. conforming to logic and empiricism)?

Perhaps the confusion lies in the difference (or lack thereof) between having reasons and using reason.

Now I'm confused.

It very well might not be but it seems to me to be so. I was thinking of it from a Misesian "human action" point of view in that we act, volitionally, towards ends. And though our subjective ends and values may or may not conform to logic and empiricism or rational standards, actions in and of themselves require rational thought to be carried out.

For example, it may be irrational for me to move to Arizona because I do not like hot weather, but for me to get from here to there requires me to act rationally (i.e. go west instead of north, choosing a mode of transportation, etc.). And thinking of the choosing to be irrational idea confused me in this light.

I may be just confusing myself for no good reason but as I pondered I figured I would throw out it there.

The act of choosing to be irrational would be separate and different from the act of being irrational. Otherwise we have problems, since one thing can't be both A and non-A at the same time.

nexalacer:

Why would choice in itself be rational (i.e. conforming to logic and empiricism)?

Because it involves a measure of rationality (knowing and rationally applying the difference between the definition of rational and irrational).

threebobs:

 

Now I'm confused.

It's a confusing question. I had to rewrite my reply three times before I could say anything that made good sense.

Ok, assuming the act of choosing to be irrational and the act of being irrational two different things... I've found another problem.

Being irrational still requires the skill of rationality (in order to apply the difference between rationality and irrationality in your behavior/speech/etc).

Oh, man... now I'm all confused again.

Ok... starting with the premises:

1. Choosing words to say requires rationality. [in order to know and apply the differences between words]

2. Saying something that defies logic is being irrational.

The confusion is happening because we're accepting these two premises even though they lead to contradiction. I still don't know what's wrong here.

I'm not willing to drop premise #2 at all.

I got it now.

Their act of choice is rational, their act of communication is rational, while their argument is irrational. Separate things, right?

Tenko:

nexalacer:

Why would choice in itself be rational (i.e. conforming to logic and empiricism)?

Because it involves a measure of rationality (knowing and rationally applying the difference between the definition of rational and irrational).

 

I'm not sure why someone would have to choose between being rational and being irrational when making a decision.  I mean, sure, the words and actions you use would have to be rational, but it's easy and it comes naturally to speak and act in conformity with reality.  The difficult part is being rational in more abstract choices.  For example, choosing whether or not to believe in a god.  The choice itself can't be called rational if the decision ends up with the irrational outcome, can it?

 A thought:

Everyone uses ratonality for 99% of their life/decisions.  (going to work, making calls, eating food)

If someone never used reason they'd be dead already.

It's the remaining 1% where the viral-mental concepts hang out under the guise of reasonableness. (State, Religion)

By 'rational' we mean applying logic and empiricism to weed out the ideas that are only posing as reasonable.

Tenko:

Ok, assuming the act of choosing to be irrational and the act of being irrational two different things... I've found another problem.

Being irrational still requires the skill of rationality (in order to apply the difference between rationality and irrationality in your behavior/speech/etc).

Oh, man... now I'm all confused again.

This is exactly what had me tangled up.

jimmy:

And though our subjective ends and values may or may not conform to logic and empiricism or rational standards, actions in and of themselves require rational thought to be carried out.

Could you expand a little on what you mean?