the derived word 'reasonable' is not synonymous with 'rational'. — Vera Mont

I think that ambiguity is the reason I never took on the task of clarifying the distinction. There's just too much room for pointless disagreement descending into "sez you." People have a lot invested in what is considered reasonable or rational and what is not.

Yes, trying to capture some kind of paradigm descriptor of thought in its purest or ideal form. I believe there are elements of logic, ethics, awareness, rationality. Reason. — Pantagruel

I think I know why you've chosen those elements, but you can't have thought without Intuition, emotion, imagination, visualization, memory.

I was continuing my inter-evaluation with ethics (which I think is another top-level descriptor). — Pantagruel

By "top level descriptor" do you mean a category at the same level as reason or rationality? Or what?

Also, I don't think thinking is strategic. I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly a lot of our thinking is not goal oriented.
— T Clark

I was thinking of a criminal. Who can have high situational-awareness and make complex plans. But is that sufficient to rationality? — Pantagruel

What I should have said is that thinking is not necessarily strategic.

I don't think complexity makes something rational. It's the connections between elements that are important. I'll stick with yes, criminal thinking can be rational. Didn't you see "Ocean's 11," "The Italian Job," and all those other heist movies.

If thinking is strategic — Pantagruel

Also, I don't think thinking is strategic. I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly a lot of our thinking is not goal oriented.

What about reasonable? — Pantagruel

I thought about starting a thread to discuss the difference between rationality and reason. They seem different to me, but they are considered synonyms. They are generally defined in terms of each other, so it's hard to separate. How would you define them?

This is how I, tentatively, see it - The discussion of anything can be rational, logical; but premises are not necessarily rational. I'd go further and say premises are generally not rational, which isn't to say they are irrational. Most of our thinking is not rational. We grasp most things without tracing our knowledge back to a source. Rationality comes into play when we have to go back and justify what we've proposed.

One way I think of reason as different from rationality, although I'm not sure it is legitimate, is in terms of broader values. Rationality is a hammer. Reason takes into account issues beyond the bare facts, e.g. clarity, civility, contemplation, cooperation. Again, that's my idiosyncratic way of looking at it.

So, yes. Discussions of criminality and ethics can be rational and reasonable.

Is it ethical for technological automation to be stunted, in order to preserve jobs? — Bret Bernhoft

It's ethical, but probably impossible or at least infeasible. Science will be science. Technology will be technology. The solution may be something like universal basic income.

On the other hand, the unemployment rate is low and demographers say there won't be enough workers in the future as birthrates decline.

Thank you.

Competing interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed which fit the math equally well, though experiments are beginning to achieve the capacity to adjudicate between them. — Enrique

I has been my understanding that different interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be differentiated using empirical methods. If you have information otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it.

The ball remains in their court. It is up to them to give an account that explicates such a use. — Banno

I've had my say. Nothing to add.

I think it’s pretty much spot on. Less complex version than mine on pg 2. — Mww

Ok.

Real is that which is the object of human inquiry. — Daniel

Many here on the forum and elsewhere would disagree.

That's actually not true. People vary in how much they trust logic. Some can march, one logical step at a time, to amazing effect. — frank

Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic.

Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations. Logic of either type is not able to make the step from the original observation to hypothesis. That requires insight, intuition.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. — Hanover

[deleted]

Just for the record, I (T Clark) did not delete this post.

The other side of this: https://www.chabad.org/4411808 — Hanover

As a philosophy - humane and inspiring. In this context - a grotesque and self-serving justification for prejudice and censorship.

I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic. — Tom Storm

Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding. It can, and sometimes does, validate or invalidate beliefs. E.g. do you think @universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.

@Baden

I appreciate you starting a new thread with a more respectful name.

I just remembered something I hadn't thought about in a long time. In my Boy Scout troop, we played games after our weekly meeting. One of my favorites was Gab Fest. Two people stand close and look each other in the eye. When someone says "start" they have to start talking fast without stop or pause. The first one to run out of things to say loses. The words don't have to be meaningful, but you can't just repeat the same thing over and over.

I was good at it.

If you think of the poetic function of language as a subtype of "fun with pattern recognition" (alongside seeing bunnies in clouds and such), that might even have contributed to the creation of language in the first place. Shared social grunt-play. Would make sense to me.

A scene from the anime Yuyushiki that may or may not demonstrate what I mean (depending on how much sense I make): — Dawnstorm

For me, all language is play and poetry is particularly playful. Metaphors are jokes. Pronunciation, rhyming, rhythm, and alliteration are music. I liked the video.

That's a matter of taking physics way, way outside of its purview. — Manuel

Agreed.

Point being, very few people are just going to say "the things I argue for/believe in are not real", it's a very strange statement to make. — Manuel

I was motivated to start this discussion by recent threads that questioned whether quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality.

Have I forgotten something in the set of what is real? Almost certainly. — Benj96

I don't have a problem with any of things you identify as real, but different people have different ideas. Some philosophical approaches deny there is any reality. Hence this discussion.

Interesting indeed. I think the main motivation for ending death through technology and medicine stems from fear of death, fear of the uknown and powerless state of non-being, fear of being forgotten and thus retrospective meaningless to your life after no one alive ever knew you even existed in the first place. In otherwords having no legacy. — Benj96

Your probably right about the reasons. I'm 70 and many of my family and friends are that old or older. I'm surprised by how many of them feel as I do. I don't think any of us are particularly afraid of dying.

Why did you take this as a criticism of a philosophical position? — Tom Storm

Your post was a response to this from Universeness.

I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with. — universeness

It's not much of an argument, but it is in response to anti-natalists position, not their psychological state.

I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

You know that analyzing a person's motivation is not a legitimate criticism of a philosophical position.

Post 200 threads in succession on any philosophical topic you like and I'll learn to hate it pretty quick, thanks. — Baden

We should have an "All Metaphysics' thread, an "All Leftist Bullshit" thread, etc. — frank

Funny, I was about to respond to Baden, ironically, that now I have to worry about a "Metaphysics Sucks" thread where all my brilliant insights will go to die. I'm pretty sure your suggestion isn't ironic.

I remain skeptical of your sincerity.

The forum is not supposed to be used as a platform for spreading any poster's particular ideology. — Baden

"Ideology" is another name for a philosophy you don't like.

I appreciate your response.

First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points. — Jamal

Perhaps that is the policy, but it certainly isn't the practice. As I noted in my first post on this subject, it is uncommon for moderators to consolidate threads, even in situations where it is getting silly.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too. — javi2541997

I didn't mean literally that the past doesn't exist. It's my experience of the past that has changed.

Mikie had our full support. — Jamal

I was certain of that. My message was to you and @Baden, not to him. It's rotten and unfair and it's bad philosophy. Prejudice and censorship against positions you don't care for.

The true ones do not disagree with each other. — Banno

There are an infinite number of true descriptions of the world.

the world is a composite of different (or all of it's) possible descriptions of the world – a complementary plurality – instead of a unity (i.e. univocity) — 180 Proof

There are an infinite number of possible descriptions of the world. This just seems like a trick to get people who are afraid to have an actual opinion about reality off the hook.

There have been times on the forum when there were three threads on free will or consciousness going at the same time. Last week there were two threads discussing whether quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality. The moderators have shown no particular interest in cutting out the clutter by consolidating threads.

Except with discussions they have classified as "Life Sucks" threads. @Mikie jammed five of @schopenhauer1's "Series in Pessimism" discussions in to the "Life Sucks" one. I think I'm pretty much the most happy happy joy joy poster on the forum, so I often don't have much patience with anti-natalism and other themes I consider nihilistic, but that's beside the point. Schopenhauer1 generally has well thought out OPs and well argued points. He won't listen to me when I tell him we live in the best of all possible worlds, but, hey, nobody else listens to me either.

There is as much nuance and depth in pessimistic philosophy as there is in free will or consciousness, at least as they manifest here on the forum. So, moderators - @Jamal, @Baden, be fair. Maybe it was reasonable to consolidate all Schopenhauer1's threads into a single Series in Pessimism, I don't know, but chucking it into the Life Sucks dumpster just kills the whole thing.

I do intend to spend a lot more of my time doing volunteer work when I turn 60, so 2 years from now. — universeness

When my brother retired, he got heavily involved in volunteer work with old people. I respect him for that and he really enjoys it. I don't have any interest in that.

I have two questions:

1. Do you feel nostalgic? — javi2541997

Within the past 10 years I've noticed that my life has telescoped. It feels a bit like I'm living all of my life at once. Things that happened 50 years ago are just as real as things that happened yesterday. I still think of friends I haven't seen in 60 years as friends. My father died in 2001, but he's as much a part of me as he was when he was alive.

That's not nostalgia. No longing for or regrets about the past. It's almost as if there's no past at all.

2. How do you face the challenges/opportunities? The same way as you did ten or twenty years ago? — javi2541997

Ten or 20 years ago I had lots of things taking up my time. Two of my children were still at home. I was working full time. I was engaged in the world. I think my primary method for facing challenges in the past was not to face them at all. Avoidance. Now? I just sit here and wait to see what happens - in the world and in myself.

heh, fair enough. It may just be the wrong question, really. It's not that things cannot be poems, but rather, if it isn't one it's a sort of challenge for the poet to turn it into one. So there's no point in delimiting the category, given it's a creative category and will expand as poets continue. — Moliere

One of the things I like about the Billy Collins poem @mcdoodle posted is its everydayness. Low key, straightforward, not trying too hard, but with depth. I am attracted to poems like that. One of my favorite poets is Carl Dennis for that very reason. Example:

As If

Before dawn, while you're still sleeping,
Playing the part of a dreamer whose house is an ark
Tossed about by a flood that will never subside,
Its dove doomed to return with no twig,
Your neighbor's already up, pulling his boots on,
Playing the part of a fisherman,
Gathering gear and loading his truck
And driving to the river and wading in
As if fishing is all he's ever wanted.
Three trout by the time you get up and wash
And come to breakfast served by a woman who smiles
As if you're first on her short list of wonders,
And you greet her as if she's first on yours.
Then you're off to school to fulfill your promise
To lose yourself for once in your teaching
And forget the clock facing your desk. Time to behave
As if the sun's standing still in a painted sky
And the day isn't a page in a one-page notebook
To be filled by sundown or never filled,
First the lines and then the margins,
The words jammed in till no white shows.

And while you're speaking as if everyone's listening,
A mile from school, at the city hall,
The mayor is behaving as if it matters
That the blueprints drawn up for the low-rent housing
Include the extra windows he's budgeted,
That the architects don't transfer the funds
To shutters and grates as they did last year
But understand that brightness is no extravagance.
And when lunch interrupts him, it's a business lunch
To plan the autumn parade, as if the fate of the nation
Hangs on keeping the floats of the poorer precincts
From looking skimpy and threadbare.

The strollers out on the street today
Don't have to believe all men are created equal,
All endowed by their creator with certain rights,
As long as they behave as if they do,
As if they believe the country will be better off
If more people do likewise, that acting this way
May help their fellow Americans better pursue
The happiness your housemate believes she's pursuing
Sharing her house with you, that the fisherman
Wants to believe he's found in fishing.

Now while you're thinking you can make her happy
As long as she's willing to behave as if you can
The fisherman keeps so still on his log
As he munches a biscuit that the fish
Rise to the surface to share his crumbs.
And the heron stands on the sandbank silently staring
As if it's wondering what the man is thinking,
Its gray eyes glinting like tin or glass.

Bagels
Cream Cheese
cleaning rags — Moliere

Sesame bagels
Cream cheese with chives and onions
Cleaning rags and soap

See, now it's a haiku.

A good OP and an interesting topic. One I've thought about quite a bit recently.

Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

I've experienced this since I retired three years ago. Cyclic time without waystations or progress. Stagnant? Uninteresting? Well, I know what he means but I think he's missing something. Living in cyclic time, with less external superstructure to hold my life together, has made me, allowed me to, fall back on my own internal resources. Sometimes it feels like looking out at a vast, flat, empty plain, but that's the challenge and opportunity.

Life is possessed by tremendous tenacity. Even so, its presence remains conditional, and as it had a beginning, so it will have an end. I believe that life, just for this reason, is exceedingly enhanced in value, — javi2541997

Something else I've been thinking about, since I'm within sight of the end of my life even without my glasses. There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever.

As I said, a good idea for a thread.

This absurdity disappears by restricting reality to a mere general metaphysical conception, re: ↪T Clark, constructed and apprehended by humans alone. Then those silly marks bracketing the word, which carries the implication it isn’t a valid conception in the first pace, can disappear as well. — Mww

The silly marks are there for grammatical, not philosophical, purposes. I was referring to the concept of reality, not reality itself.

On the flip side of a shopping list. This is by Billy Collins. — mcdoodle

First thought - a different poem if it ended at:

until I had passed through the electric doors,
where I stopped to realize,
as I turned the list over,
that I had forgotten Terry O’Shea
as well as the bananas and the bread.

I'll think about it and have more to say.