"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[Enteebee]

I don't think you can say our instincts are irrational or rational, they're pre-rational. As for whether our instincts are the most rational answer in any given situation... well I don't think they'd be found to be perfectly irrational or rational but surely if we stick to looking at the situations our ancestors would have found themselves in they are overall far more rational.

 

[Ragglebomb]

I don't think you can say our instincts are irrational or rational, they're pre-rational. As for whether our instincts are the most rational answer in any given situation... well I don't think they'd be found to be perfectly irrational or rational but surely if we stick to looking at the situations our ancestors would have found themselves in they are overall far more rational.

I would agree with that but, to me at least, if you examined that majority of our "instincts" we would conclude that the reason they developed, in hindsight, reflects what we would call "rational."


EDIT: which is basically what you wrote in your edit.

 

[Kwayera]

lol ok, our species must have survived entirely despite itself then

Rationality is an arbitrary construct, though. Our instincts have sufficed to get us this far, but to say that it's "good instincts" and thus "rational" when you apply it to a situation that our instincts weren't designed to govern, outside what can be applied to sociobiology? I think that's an intellectual (and arrogant) fallacy.

Sometimes our instincts are wrong, and sometimes they are right. To say that the right ones are rational and that's the be-all-end-all is ignorant to say the least.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Have you?

Fairly goddamn frequently.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

you are criticism the individual. Stick to telling us how you disagree with his previous statement

Are you a fucking sped? Of course I know what a fucking Ad Hominem argument is you aspie.

 

[Ragglebomb]

Well it's not really an arbitrary construct. Any word we develop to describe anything is an arbitrary construct if you want to play that game. As Chadd said, instincts are "pre-rational" but reflecting upon the reasons they developed would allow us to say they were "rational" responses to the prevailing environment, in the most basic sense.

Our instincts developed in response to situations and environments that may no longer exist or be relevant to our current state. But in the situation they were designed to cope with they would've be rational mechanisms.

But yeah, we can play the semantics game all day if you want.

 

[Enteebee]

Rationality is an arbitrary construct, though. Our instincts have sufficed to get us this far, but to say that it's "good instincts" and thus "rational" when you apply it to a situation that our instincts weren't designed to govern, outside what can be applied to sociobiology? I think that's an intellectual (and arrogant) fallacy.

Sometimes our instincts are wrong, and sometimes they are right. To say that the right ones are rational and that's the be-all-end-all is ignorant to say the least.

If you're just saying that you don't think our instincts are rational when it comes to the market or other modern social institutions... then I doubt you're disagreeing with Ashton.

 

[Kwayera]

Well it's not really an arbitrary construct. Any word we develop to describe anything is an arbitrary construct if you want to play that game. As Chadd said, instincts are "pre-rational" but reflecting upon the reasons they developed would allow us to say they were "rational" responses to the prevailing environment, in the most basic sense.

Our instincts developed in response to situations and environments that may no longer exist or be relevant to our current state. But in the situation they were designed to cope with they would've be rational mechanisms.

But yeah, we can play the semantics game all day if you want.

Did you read my post or did you just get caught up in the first first few words?

 

[Ragglebomb]

If you're just saying that you don't think our instincts are rational when it comes to the market or other modern social institutions... then I doubt you're disagreeing with Ashton.

Well yeah if that's all she was saying I'd agree but she seems more to be expanding it to say that we never have or will act "rational" whatever that word means to her.

 

[Kwayera]

If you're just saying that you don't think our instincts are rational when it comes to the market or other modern social institutions... then I doubt you're disagreeing with Ashton.

I think some instincts are rational, and I think some are not. Which means it's meaningless to call rationality "instinctual", for which instincts would you be referring to in a given situation?

 

[Ragglebomb]

Did you read my post or did you just get caught up in the first first few words?

Yeah I did read your post and it was garbage so well done, clap clap do back to your defunct degree.

 

[Kwayera]

Well yeah if that's all she was saying I'd agree but she seems more to be expanding it to say that we never have or will act "rational" whatever that word means to her.

I.. don't think that? I just think that rationality is a silly word to ascribe to instinct, and I also don't believe that humans "instinctually act rationally". Because we don't - not all the time, and certainly not more often than not. As I have said, I would expect the difference to not be statistically different from zero.

 

[Kwayera]

Yeah I did read your post and it was garbage so well done, clap clap do back to your defunct degree.

Hay man, that hurts, just because it lost funding

 

[KFunk]

I don't think you can say our instincts are irrational or rational, they're pre-rational. As for whether our instincts are the most rational answer in any given situation... well I don't think they'd be found to be perfectly irrational or rational but surely if we stick to looking at the situations our ancestors would have found themselves in they are overall far more rational.

Aye, a trusty old heuristic won't necessarily hold up in novel situations (which we have been generating by the bucket load since the industrial revolution).

 

[Ragglebomb]

Well ok, I can't really be blamed for not understanding what you're saying when you whip out stuff that makes no sense...

Our instincts have sufficed to get us this far, but to say that it's "good instincts" and thus "rational" when you apply it to a situation that our instincts weren't designed to govern, outside what can be applied to sociobiology?

...case in point.



Get yr expression on.

 

[Enteebee]

Aye, a trusty old heuristic won't necessarily hold up in novel situations (which we have been generating by the bucket load since the industrial revolution).

As I said, if we stick to looking at the situations our ancestors would have found themselves in.

I think Kwayera's trying to make a point of saying that instincts are completely separate from rationality, thus no rationality is 'instinctual'. We obviously accept this... they remain pre-rational, before our consciousness even gets a chance to consider them.

So then when someone claims something which occurred instinctually was rational, I think they're just saying:

1: That though it occurred instinctually, and thus on its own is pre-rational.
2: If I were to apply my rationality to the situation I would have had the same result.
C: The result of the instinct was as good as a rational result.

 

[Ragglebomb]

lol i love when people link to a wikipedia article when they think they've dropped a particularly brilliant word or concept

 

[chicky_pie]

Communism = Left wing politics

 

[sam04u]

The whole instinctually rational argument sidetracks the whole thread.
Whether or not man is rational all the time, does not effect their ability to make rational decisions. To argue man is never rational is plain retarded.

Now to the point. I argued that regardless of whether or not man is rational all the time, assuming most of mankind is capable of making rational decisions some of the time, they could still reach different conclusions. Therefore that entire argument is irrelevant. A perfectly rational billionaire could have several rational reasons for not wanting to redistribute their wealth amongst poor people, but that does not effect the socialist principles.

Socialism is based more on the poor and down trodden demanding better living conditions, than the rich and comfortable giving them better conditions altruistically. Therefore that entire argument was mooted.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Socialism is based more on the poor and down trodden demanding better living conditions, than the rich and comfortable giving them better conditions altruistically.

Whilst the second half of what you said here is sensible (ie. socialism is not about altruism), the first half is extremely shallow.

Socialism is not simply the acquisition of better living standards for the "poor" (however that is defined). Rather, socialism is the self-abolition of the working class qua working class. It is fundamentally the supersession of the law of value and the abolition of commodity production. As such, it is the abolition of all classes, the abolition of the state and the abolition of the alienating and exploitative nature of labour.