For you didn't intend to say "a normative reason' and accidentally left off the 'a'. No, you didn't have a clue what you meant to say and so just stuck some words together. You didn't leave off the a. You had no idea it needed to be there for the sentence to make any sense at all. Correct? — Bartricks

There is no such thing as 'normative reason'. You can have normative reason to do something. They 'are' reasons to do things.

So, this "John has normative reason to do x" makes sense.

This:

If normative reason is — introbert

doesn't.

As you'd know if you knew what the words 'normative reason' denote. And you don't. So you don't know how to handle it.

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=normative%20reason

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/#NormReas

Here's an interesting puzzle for anyone interested. If 'a' normative reason is rational then 'a' reason is reason, so in a prescriptive linguistic culture to say 'normative reason' when the singular form normatively or 'ought' to be used is irrational, but is logical, so is actually rational. Proving, incidentally, that normative reason is not the ultimate reduction of rationality.

If 'a' normative reason is rational — introbert

There's no such thing as 'a rational normative reason'! Normative reasons are what make actions rational. Jesus.

Stop using words you don't understand.

'a rational normative reason' — Bartricks

I never used this combination of words.

Er, you said this:

If 'a' normative reason is rational — introbert

That means you're presupposing that there are rational normative reasons - that the idea makes sense. Which it doesn't. Seems you know less about what you're saying than I thought!

Is are rational being is? Transcending Cartesian epistemology is what some rationalities are about is. But rational are is being is presupposing dichotomy if was are.

"A normative reason is a reason (for someone) to act—in T. M. Scanlon’s phrase, “a consideration that counts in favour of” someone’s acting in a certain way (1998 and 2004). A motivating reason is a reason for which someone does something, a reason that, in the agent’s eyes, counts in favour of her acting in a certain way." plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/

When I say 'a' normative reason is rational I mean having a normative reason. Having is implied. It's like saying 'if a logical idea is rational' the 'having' is implied.

When I say 'a' normative reason is rational I mean having a normative reason. — introbert

Oh really. And when I said "is are being rational is are" I meant "I'd like a packet of crisps, please".

Again: you don't know what you're talking about. You're using words before you know what they mean and writing gibberish. Stop wasting people's seeing juice with such stuff.

The only thing I will give you credit for in this thread is that your rigid inability to render meaning from anything that slightly defies cultural prescriptivism is coherent with your mostly incoherent argument for normative reason.

The only thing I will give you credit for in this thread is that your rigid inability to render meaning from anything that slightly defies cultural prescriptivism is coherent with your mostly incoherent argument for normative reason. — introbert

And what do you mean by those words? It too was nonsense. "For normative reason". You don't learn, do you? Is are doing normative are consequential transcendental epistemologies. Reason is the conjunction of friendly Humean supervenience relations that disambiguate quietly.

If [having] 'a' normative reason is rational then 'a' reason is reason — introbert

Note, that was nonsense too.

Rather than stringing words together and hoping the result makes sense, try understanding what you're talking about. That is, use little words - regular words - to say what you mean. What do you mean? Anything? Is there any coherent thought that you're trying to express with these linguistic burps?

I am disagreeing with your normative reason for acting which correspondingly is an argument about rationality that conforms to your culture's (I assume British) long standing belief. I do not think that is rationality. I referred earlier to Galileo as an example of rationality that defies normative reason. That you are acting so ignorantly and irrationally in the face of argument against your culturally prescribed codes is further indictment of not only your argument but your society's beliefs.

I am disagreeing with your normative reason for acting which correspondingly is an argument about rationality that conforms to your culture's (I assume British) long standing belief. — introbert

Utter nonsense. First, you can't disagree with a normative reason. That's like thinking you can disagree with cheese. Do you disagree with cheese? You can 'have' a normative reason for doing or believing something. You can disagree with me, when I say that I believe I have a normative reason to do X. But you can't disagree with a normative reason. They're not little people.

Second, "which correspondingly is an argument about rationality". Well, putting aside that the 'which' there refers to some total garbage, it is not 'an argument about rationality'. An argument has premises (at least one) and a conclusion. Confused rubbish doesn't.

that conforms to your culture's (I assume British) long standing belief — introbert

Culture's don't have beliefs. People - agents - do (or can do). Cultures don't. They too are not people. A collection of people is not a person.

I referred earlier to Galileo as an example of rationality that defies normative reason. — introbert

Galileo was a person, not an example of rationality. A person may exhibit rationality. But a person cannot 'be' rationality.

And you can't defy normative reason. You can defy a normative reason. You can't defy normative reason.

That you are acting so ignorantly and irrationally in the face of argument against your culturally prescribed codes is further indictment of not only your argument but your society's beliefs. — introbert

Are you pulling sentence parts out of a hat?

you can't disagree with a normative reason — Bartricks

Yes, I can disagree with a normative reason when it refers to a culturally influenced argument which is a belief about rationality.

Culture's don't have beliefs — Bartricks

Yes cultures do have beliefs, they don't have them the same way as people, but cultures have beliefs the same ways they have traditions, or practices. A culture is a cultivation of all the objects of a given people. The total cultivation 'has' different parts.

Galileo was a person, not an example of rationality. A person may exhibit rationality. But a person cannot 'be' rationality. — Bartricks

Not being very creative repeating the same non-argument over and over. A nit-picking point doesn't invalidate that Galileo is an example of opposing rationality.

Yes, I can disagree with a normative reason when it refers to a culturally influenced argument which is a belief about rationality. — introbert

No you can't, because the term 'normative reason' refers to a favoring relation, and one can't disagree with those for they do not have attitudes or beliefs with which one can be said to be disagreeing.

Now, if you're using the the term 'normative reason' to refer to whatever occurs to you at the time or at some other time, then you could disagree with a normative reason on those occasions when you're using it to refer to a person. But someone who uses the term in that way is a tedious idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about but isn't letting that stop him. So it depends....

Yes cultures do have beliefs — introbert

No they don't. So, to be clear, you think the Chinese culture believes things? Does it also get upset? Can all the members of a culture - now and throughout its history - have believed not-x, yet the culture believe x?

Shall I answer for you? Let's see "A culture is belief has when normative transcendent Galileo confers disjunctively on it, by prescription". Is that about right?

It's really interesting that if you are indeed behaving coherently to normative reason and thus rationally how it is not ironic to you these discursive practices in philosophical argument are considered rational and not fallacious/ irrational. A few that I have noticed are mockery, nit-picking, gaslighting, misinterpretation, lack of charity, ad hominem etc. That these culturally prescribed actions are rational because they are culturally prescribed, begs. To me they are jarringly irrational but to another brit you must seem extremely rational.

Interesting it is that disjunctive transcendental stupidity reigns in supervenient ways upon rebarbative reason concepts, don't you think?

The red pill is the 'read' pill.
The blue pill is you blew it

Curiosity and trust perhaps.
Didn't Morpheus mention something about control? Or power? Been a while.
These could be reasonable factors.

Agent Smith never did really understand what the Oracle was up to. Neither did the Architect until the end. There's several good YT videos that do a deep dive on the trilogy. Some even argue Agent Smith is actually The One.

Anyway, the Oracle, as an intuitive program, recognized that the fight between the machines and humans was just going to continue in the same cycle, so she wanted to find a way forward where they could both coexist in a less combative state. A way for humans and machines to evolve their relationship. To do this, she had to risk everything to force both sides into making peace. The Architect and the machines lose control over Agent Smith, forcing Neo to make a deal they will accept if he gives the machine he's plugged into the ability to identify the Smith virus and eliminate it. The Oracle shows Neo the way by letting Smith turn her into another Smith. Neo must concede the fight so Smith will take him over, allowing the antivirus to take out Smith, and the Architect will then honor the peace agreement, as you see when he meets the Oracle in the park.

As for Agent Smith possibly being the the actual One, you could argue the Oracle lied to everyone including Neo so that she could use Smith to force the peaceful resolution. Neo was necessary because of his special status (somehow both connected to the machine world and humanity), and that needed to be transferred to Smith so he could become a virus.

If the matrix will give you all that you want and could ever want, without ever being aware that it is fabricated, would you chose the red pill?

All you are striving for in life is achieved in the matrix in the appropriate way and you'll die thinking that it was all real.

Would you still chose to escape it?

If yes, would you say that is the rational choice? — TheMadMan

A continuous thing that happens in The Matrix is how people feel that something is wrong with the world. Existence within the matrix gives the same sense of meaningless existence as can be experienced in the real world. This is common, but in The Matrix, it has a literary meaning.

However, the real kicker is not the red or blue pill; it's that our reality is not different from the one in The Matrix.

Are we not all connected to a "machine" that gets its lifeblood from our contemporary life? Our consumption, our marketed lifestyles, our constant attempts at creating unique identities?

Look around you and tell me if any object is genuinely not part of a manufactured life. I'm not talking about function, but rather how design and branding, the materialistic aesthetics, shapes, and forms program us into a hypnotized zombie state, believing our materialistic lifestyle is "the real world."

Baudrillard criticized The Matrix for not understanding his concept, while I think the whole trilogy better follows his ideas. The one thing that he pointed out is that we cannot "wake up" because we don't know what is real and what is a simulacra. Since we don't know and have become lost in this "desert of the real," we cannot wake up to anything else because nothing else exists.

So my question is this: if you knew you could live a long life in ignorance of how the world works; eating well, finding pleasure, and dying in wealth, would you do it? Or would you "take the red pill" and understand how a modern form of totalitarian control over the population has taken the form of an eldritch monster that has no master, a system like an algorithm that has been fine-tuned to continuously keep going with us as its cogs?

The main point I'm making is that you don't have to use The Matrix as an analogy. You can use our actual reality as an example, and the question becomes much more potent and scary.

An interesting take on The Matrix Trilogy. The two, Mr. Anderson, ultimately Neo, The One, and Agent Smith, later the Smith virus, were like positron (positive) and electron (negative) - polar opposites of each other. The Oracle (intuitive program as per Matrix lore) in collaboration with the Architect (reason incarnate), mother & father of The Matrix, it appears, had been planning this all along. They anticipated the Smith virus and so they needed Neo; Neo serves as a trap for Agent Smith (suicide-murder kinda deal).

What is most reasonable for you? Truth in the expense of happiness or happiness in the expense of truth? — TheMadMan

How could it even be possible to have one at the expense of the other??

One could tell a stupid person "you are a smart".
Really, possibilities are endless.

No, explain: Why should happiness and truth be mutually exclusive?

No, explain: Why should happiness and truth be mutually exclusive? — baker

I never said they should be mutually exclusive. I said they could be, and gave you a simple example.