1

How i see the rational man: A man who not only able to believe that something is rational/irrational, but in the same time able to function in respect to this belief.

An example for the irrational man, is somebody who sees that caring about other people's opinions is irrational, but in the same time involuntarily thinks about their opinions or performs a behavior which indicates that he does care about their opinions.

There are of course who can fit this definition, but it seems to me that the problem is whether we can push this belief radically into our perspective at our will, instead of it happening randomly as a sudden grace.

Is it impossible or possible with practice?

  • Maybe the one who is unemotional, can do that... – rus9384 Jun 23 '18 at 8:16
  • I'm afraid I cannot disentangle the question. – PeterJ Jun 23 '18 at 11:17
  • 1
    These human foibles we definitely have! Stoics: "the soul can withhold assent from what is objectively a true perception". History of Philosophy, F. Copleston, v.1 pt. 2, Chapter 36. – Gordon Jun 23 '18 at 16:15
1

That is consistency, not rationality.

What you are talking about is consistency, not rationality.

Rationality is:

being based on or agreeable to reason

Reason in turn is:

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

What you are talking about is something else. In short you ask if a person will be able to always act according to their expressed convictions.

Short answer: yes... but we call such persons fanatics, because only a fanatic is one that will consistently stick to their convictions no matter what kind of information or arguments are presented to them.

A rational person on the other hand is one would adapt their convictions as new facts and arguments become available to them.

So what would a non-fanatic but also non-rational person be? That would be someone that simply does not have any convictions, or just ignores them.

0

Can man be rational?

Yes. But within constraints. Rationality is bounded by assumptions, subject, and personal involvement. Does x love me? Not a very rational question because the subject is emotional. Does gravity exist? Involves empirical experiments which involve no emotion.

Equally the enquiry about subjects relies on the stability of the enquirer to be stable and reliable in their observations and conclusions. So for some people into is impossible to be rational because they have lost all emotional stability and simple logical conclusions mean very little to them. Equally a wealth of knowledge and experience is sometimes needed to come to a rational conclusion over a complex subject, because the conclusion balances out many subjective and emotional issues, which have no definitive conclusion. Is it rational to drive a car? Are planes safe?

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.