[extropy-chat] Rational thinking

[Chris Hibbert]

> Chris Hibbert wrote:
>> > I hope I don't have to quote everything relevant in your 
>> > message in order to be understood to be taking that as context.
> 
> No you don't have to include all the relevant text, but the funny
> thing is that twice now you've deleted my sentence

Hmmm.  Seems we have different approaches to constructing a reply.  I 
don't delete particular sentences, I include the particular sentences 
that give context to what I'm saying.  In this case, I didn't understand 
your argument, so I didn't recognize the points you made to provide a 
foundation.  I left them out because they weren't the points I wanted to 
address.

> stating that both classes
> of actors, (the founding fathers and the kamikaze pilots) were acting
> rationally, acting effectively within their contextual environment. But
> it's clear that that relevant line hasn't been making an impression on
> you, because earlier you said you thought I was calling the kamikaze
> pilots irrational, and now (below) you're referring to the "difference
> in apparent rationality".
 >
> To summarize:
> 
> First I said something about rationality: That rationality can be
> assessed only within context.
> 
> **** I keep saying I think they were each acting rationally, acting as
> effectively as they could within their respective contextual
> environments. ****
> 
> I then went on to say something about morality: That increasing morality
> corresponds with increasingly rational actions applied to promoting
> increasingly shared values over increasing scope.
>   
> **** I keep saying that I think the founding fathers' actions were more
> moral than the kamikaze pilots' actions, because, despite effectively
> equal degree of rationality,  the founding fathers were acting on behalf
> of a larger shared identity, to promote values that would have
> consequences over larger scope. ****

Thanks.  That exposition makes your stance clear to me.  I was missing 
it, probably mostly because I saw your example of kamikaze pilots as an 
example of the "other" and jumped to a conclusion about where you were 
heading.

My apologies.

> Actually I've never thought of the Japanese as enemies, being much too
> young to have developed such feelings during the way, and having several
> close friends in Japan.  I also haven't considered their decisions to
> become kamikaze pilots as bad for them.  As I've said repeatedly, I
> think they did the best they could have in that situation.  The
> consequences of refusing to become kamikaze pilots would have been much
> worse.

I lived in Japan for several years as well, but was too young for deep 
discussions of rationality or morality at the time.

I did see your repeated claim that they were rational.  I thought your 
point was that rationality can lead you astray rather than that 
rationality is distinct from morality.

> I keep saying that I think both the kamikaze pilots and the founding
> fathers were acting relatively rationally within their respective
> contexts.  In other words, I don't agree and have never asserted that
> their was a difference in apparent rationality. 
I get it now.

>> > due to the social pressures of the situation, or the cause
>> > for which they fought?  Do we have preconceptions based on
>> > who they were, how the battle turned out, or the results
>> > they achieved for themselves or their posterity?
> 
> No, but maybe this is clearer now based on clarifications above.

Yes.

>> > I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied 
>> > troops, who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions, 
>> > with the kamikazes. 
> 
> Huh?  I'm quite sure there was only a Japanese pilot in those kamikaze
> planes.
> 
> Maybe you meant to say that Allied troops were also sent on suicide
> missions.

I think what I wrote can be interpreted the same as if I had written

 >> I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied
 >> troops (who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions)
 >> with the kamikazes.

But the latter would have been clearer.  Usually I'm guilty of using too 
many parenthetical asides, rather than too few.

Thanks for sticking with me,
Chris
-- 
All sensory cells [in all animals] have in common the presence of
... cilia [with a constant] structure.  It provides a strong
argument for common ancestry.  The common ancestor ... was a
spirochete bacterium.
   --Lynn Margulis (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html#margulis)

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org
http://mydruthers.com