Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here. 
You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as 
somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

In this case "rational" is more of a synonym from "greedy" of "selfish" 
(only less of a loaded term), which seems to be the most natural way of 
interpreting his use of the word.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:28 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> news:49fa9ae4$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
>> here to witness the end, it's one thing.
>>
>> If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
>> different.
>
> Why?

Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that 
quickly.

I'm not saying we're the cause, I'm only saying that these extinctions 
are different (which they are - at least, the timescale is different).

And, if the events now are different in some fundamental way from the 
events of the past, we should pay attention to them.  If we don't, we 
risk be surprised by our own, sudden, extinction event.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:29 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
> Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> nothing to break.

Simply put, continued existence of as many species as possible.

While ego would dictate that I am more important than You, 
philosophically I've progressed beyond that.  I'm currently at the point 
(consciously, if not unconsciously yet) where I value your life the same 
as my own, for the simple reason that, according to chance, your life 
could have been mine and vice versa.

Put another way, from an outside perspective there is no difference 
between one human and another.  Both lives are equally valid, therefore 
both are equally important.

Taken even further, there is no difference between one form of life and 
another.  All are equally valid expressions of their own fate.

Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
kinds of life, here.

Since I recognize that I cannot preserve all specimens, I think the best 
course of action would be to preserve as many unique types of life as 
possible.  Given that preservation is my goal, sustainability is a key 
part of that.

Note that, in this case, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an idealist. 
  I'm perfectly willing to eat meat, and eliminate certain wildlife from 
urban areas, et cetera.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 1:51 PM, Warp wrote:
>    (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

I think so.  It's certainly pessimistic enough.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
>
>>> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>> ?
>>
>> It isn't?
>
> No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?

Assuming I have the ability to learn, than yes I would.  Inconsistency 
would result in sheer random chaos.  Consistency, even if inaccurate, 
puts a measure of control on it.

Once consistency has been achieved, in other words we are in control of 
our own selves, then I would suggest that we set to work ironing out the 
wrinkles, and correcting are faulty logic.  This would be impossible 
without consistency.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbb6fa$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> > would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

> Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy,

I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".

I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more 
akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and 
admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if 
"chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

>> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".
> 
> I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

I'm tempted to make exactly the opposite claim, but I suppose dullness 
is in the eye of the beholder.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fbb052$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> >> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> >> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> >> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> >> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
> >>
> >> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think
he
> >> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> >
> > I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the
> > self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

> And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
> a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

You got me there, if I'm reading you right. It can of course benefit someone
if the act/thought of being concerned about the universe a few hundered
years from now makes the person warm and fuzzy inside. Homeopathy, to
incorporate another recent thread, benefits the individual if that
individual is under the illusion that it works. But if the cat is out the
bag, it stops working, and you cannot will the cat back in. I can no more
pretend that caring about the state of the universe hundered years from now
can make me feel good inside, and more than I can pretend that homeopathy
can cure my ailments. If caring about supernatural (universe in 200 years)
makes you feel good, more power to you. But that's as irrational to me as
(correct my assumption here if wrong) homeopathy is to you.

Similarly, I'm quite convinced that believing in various gods makes people
happy, and even successful. However, I still call them irrational, for their
belief is not based on the rational realization (*) that the benefit of
beliveing in god(s) is feeling good. It's a catch 22. You cannot belive in
god for rational reasons and still feel good, for the moment you realize
those reasons, the magic, that is, the reality of god, disappears. Placebo
doesn't work if you know it's saline solution.

> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I have only my definition to judge others by. Pretending to use any other
definition would be dishonest.

(*) There are those who, out of rational reasons, *pretend* to belive in
god(s). "Belief" and "pretend belief" are very different, of course.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> 
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be 
apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Post a reply to this message