• baker
    1k
    Philosophy is supposed to be love of wisdom.
    Wisdom should have something vitally to do with how one goes about one's daily life, 24/7.
    — baker

    That's an agreeable statement. Don't you think, however, that deciphering a larger meaning can aid the living of one's life?
    Aryamoy Mitra
    Reflection/self-examination/philosophy are not necessarily mutually exclusive with "living life".

    Although I can think of some ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence that are dead-ends, leave one paralyzed. So that if one thinks in terms of those ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence one indeed ends up in a situation of a complete logical disjunction: one either "lives life", or one attempts to justify it, but one cannot have both. This deadlock situation is one that can occur, for example, if one tries to rationalize one's existence within the scope of (mono)theism when one doesn't have an already existing commitment to a particular (mono)theism.
    This deadlock situation that "spiritual seekers" can often find themselves in.

    A lot more to say here, but the ball's in your court now.
  • TheMadFool
    9.1k
    Admittedly, the term bears the negative connotation you've discussed - and it wasn't at the forefront of my mind, whilst creating this thread. Nonetheless, here's what I was suggesting:

    By rationalizing their life, I'm implying that an individual seek and locate an underlying rationale, or a set of rationales that can engender, justify and/or demonstrate the proposition that their life is meaningful - therefore according them reason to continually exist, or an affirmation to their own being. For example, if one were a hedonist - they might instantly invoke that premise, to strive towards a life of mitigating sentient suffering, or maximizing the converse.

    What I'm positing, is that if this process were undertaken in a manner that wasn't perfunctory - with sustained chains of reasoning - it'd almost certainly be arduous (since one might discover about themselves, or their being truths they'd rather not), and without an unequivocal end.
    Aryamoy Mitra

    An interesting thought to consider is this: If you survey non-human animals, even those allegedly closest to us - the great apes - you'll find that the brains of these animals are dedicated to one and only one function - coordination of the different systems in the body with the ultimate aim being survival for as long as possible for the entire organism.

    In humans, this is also the case - the brain is the overall neuro-hormonal control center that harmonizes the various organ systems in order that we maximize our chances of survival. However, with humans, there's something else going on viz. the brain seems to have taken over and repositioned itself in the number 1 slot in the list of our priorities. What this means is the brain now thinks that the other organ systems are there to serve it. When this happens, the brain refuses to acknowledge its true purpose as nothing more than a conductor for the orchestra of organ systems that our bodies are made of and the rest, as you know, is history - the search for the meaning of life, a rationale for existence, is simply the brain attempting a coup d'etat, rather unsuccessfuly given the fact that the tentative consensus seems to be that life is meaningless.
  • Aryamoy Mitra
    156


    What this means is the brain now thinks that the other organ systems are there to serve it. When this happens, the brain refuses to acknowledge its true purpose as nothing more than a conductor for the orchestra of organ systems that our bodies are made of and the rest, as you know, is history - the search for the meaning of life, a rationale for existence, is simply the brain attempting a coup d'etat, rather unsuccessfuly given the fact that the tentative consensus seems to be that life is meaningless.TheMadFool

    That's an intriguing hypothesis. Most of these additive functions (meta-functions of survival, in a way) perhaps evolved after the human race mastered its own survival, to the extent that directing any other biological resources towards that end was merely decorative.
  • TheMadFool
    9.1k
    That's an intriguing hypothesis. Most of these additive functions (meta-functions of survival, in a way) perhaps evolved after the human race mastered its own survival, to the extent that directing any other biological resources towards that end was merely decorative.Aryamoy Mitra

    I'm glad that you find it "...intriguing..." Aryamoy Mitra. Give it some thought. Isn't it strange that we identify ourselves with our minds (brains) when in fact it's just a platform for syncing the organ systems into the more or less harmonious process that we call living or life. The tendency to identify ourselves as brains/minds is instinctive and feels so natural that we completely forget to question its validity. To make matters worse, the illusion that the mind/brain is the head honcho is sustained by a vast and complex "mindscape" in which the mind usually resides, especially when the needs of the other organ systems are met i.e. when we're well fed. Occasionally, the brain is ejected from its comfort zone - disease, suffocation, pain, starvation, etc. - and the brain is rudely reminded of its true purpose which is to ensure the whole body is functioning in perfect or near-perfect unison.

    Doesn't it remind you of a goat herder whose task is to ensure the well-being of his flock? I recall some stories and even seen some paintings that involve this profession. When there's no danger of predators, the goat herder simply plonks himself down on the grass or a rock and starts daydreaming only to be jarred into action at signs of predators eyeing his goats. The brain is just like the goat herder - its job is to look after the whole body just as the goat herder's is to care for his flock. However, there are times when the brain is free, just as the goat herder is, and that's when all the "fun" begins.
  • SteveMinjares
    53
    ~Aryamoy Mitra

    Is rationalizing existence beneficial to the quality of life to community and the individual?

    Or is it a form of self-indulgence that can lead to other forms of self mutilation and mutilation of community?
  • Aryamoy Mitra
    156

    Is rationalizing existence beneficial to the quality of life to community and the individual?

    Or is it a form of self-indulgence that can lead to other forms of self mutilation and mutilation of community?
    SteveMinjares

    That is, in all likelihood, dependent on how it's undertaken - isn't it? Most individuals are oriented differently; some live their lives without incessant rationales - and others can't live without them. Of course, if it devolves into a form of self-indulgence at any stage, it should be (ideally) discontinued.
  • SteveMinjares
    53
    Of course, if it devolves into a form of self-indulgence at any stage, it should be (ideally) discontinued.Aryamoy Mitra

    How do you recognize it as self-indulgence if the individual is blind to the effects of good or bad?

    If the individual self impose a denial to the effects just to continue justifying indulgence. How do you recognize?

    Is it better to be ignorant or not?
  • Aryamoy Mitra
    156


    How do you recognize it as self-indulgence if the individual is blind to the effects of good or bad?SteveMinjares

    One of the markers of self-indulgence in this regard, perhaps, is losing a sight of one's ends while being immersed in their means. For instance, if one were to begin rationalizing hedonistic impulses, or detracting from the welfare of those around them whilst doing so - that might be a time to halt.

    Either way, I think some differentiating signifier (between what's good and what isn't) needs to be present.

    If the individual self impose a denial to the effects just to continue justifying indulgence. How do you recognize?SteveMinjares

    I'm not sure. If one is self-imposing an ignorance, then they by definition won't recognize a self-indulgence.

    Is it better to be ignorant or not?SteveMinjares

    There's an entire realm of thought dedicated to this question, and I don't think I'm nearly educated enough to begin to contemplate it - let alone answer it.
  • j0e
    140
    When there's no danger of predators, the goat herder simply plonks himself down on the grass or a rock and starts daydreaming only to be jarred into action at signs of predators eyeing his goats. The brain is just like the goat herder - its job is to look after the whole body just as the goat herder's is to care for his flock. However, there are times when the brain is free, just as the goat herder is, and that's when all the "fun" begins.TheMadFool

    :point: :party:
  • j0e
    140
    To me rationalization is where a belief-seeking agent selects the conceptual framework which best supports the information. Why pick the arduous and painful paradigm when there are in principle an infinite number of hypotheses that can support any given observation?Zophie

    :point:

    Could also be expressed as: the doubt-avoiding agent patches up beliefs so that the info is assimilated at something like a minimum of humiliation and pain.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.