The concept behind the meaning of Rationality has eluded me since the time i started thinking about it. To put it in the simple words for the lesser mortals i'd say that the meaning of Rationality as stated in the dictionary doesn't make sense to me at all.
rationality [ˌræʃəˈnælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state or quality of being rational or logical
2. the possession or utilization of reason or logic
3. a reasonable or logical opinion
Here you go. Read it? Just read that one more time. Done that? Do it again. Re-re-read? Did you notice a peculiar thing? Or maybe it is just me, that is precisely why i am writing this post; but the meaning doesn't grow upon you with every re-read that you give it, and on the contrary it seems to die down. The definition is contorted. What really is ridiculous and fake about this definition is that the words used to define the term Rationality aren't any easier to be defined themselves. The above reference is to the words 'quality', 'reason' and 'logic'. Now, you could stop and think over it, or just carry on reading because human beings tend to seek the easy way out, Always.
The problem i guess is that rationality is a subjective term. I mean something may seem logical to one person, while it may seem illogical to the other. Mind you, i'll be using the term rationality and logic interchangeably. Say for example there are four people, who stay together and have just had a very heavy dinner at a restaurant 5 km. from their home. For going back they could either take an auto who would charge Rs 10 per person, or they could walk back which is always an option if you don't have time and stamina as constraints. For some reason three people feel like walking back home, because it will help digesting food. They 4th guy argues; well, you could walk a km if you like but 5kms is like wtf?! But then everyone also earns decent money and the three of them enter a sort of argument with the other guy justifying how walking will help them digest food and save money too. The 4th guy then gives up on the argument and prefers to take the auto which charges him 40 rupees. He reaches home half an hour before every one does, but feels sad about how he couldn't convince the others to take the auto along with him which could have saved him 30 rupees. Strange, the ways of the world, he feels. Basically he realized it turned out to be some ego issue with a 3 on 1 situation and survival of the 'fittest' too. Is the 4th guy doomed for life if he doesn't change his ways? Is he not respecting evolution?
Well, if you ask me to analyse the above story, no body was irrational. Everyone just did what made sense to him. I mean the 4th guy could say the other guys were fools, wanting to save 10 rupees and walking 5Kms for that, but something will stop him. That is he can't just say what made sense to him is the best possible thing. It may be for him, but not for others. This is the heart of the discussion. You can never claim that at any given moment your actions were rational and what others did was irrational, for the very simple reason stated above. People have different levels of intelligence, things that make sense to one person are different than things that make sense to other people. While there may be many people who will buy your argument but you just cannot convince the whole world into believing in your definition of rationality. Take for example this blog post, it will make sense to many and not so much sense to others. Its all about feelings and perceptions and these, vary from people to people. Then, why, may i ask, is there a need to define rationality when no one is qualified enough to grasp its meaning.
But and this is a big BUT, there will always be some enlightened men, who gauge both sides of an argument and scrutinize the very process of defining rationality and then move on without defining rationality as a word but taking it as believing in something that makes sense, for the benefit of the whole society, always weighing in situations thoroughly before jumping to conclusions, understanding the very subtle argument that people with increasing amounts of intuitive powers and the intelligence to distinguish between intuition and prejudice, will have increasing amounts of clarity of the meaning of rationality and logic. With this heavy realization i have nothing more to say but that, I take pride in the fact, that I am one such man.
I am not one among you, don't count me as your normal friend. I am very different from what you are, i am neither a superior nor an inferior, i belong to a different dimension, a different universe altogether. Thanks for your time. Ciao.
Try reading Amartya Sen's 'Rationality & Freedom'.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you can, try and persevere through it till the end.
no rights.no wrongs. coz there's no judge!
ReplyDeleteall the 'mortals' like us can do is be nonpartisan.
I wonder if even the above is intelligible to her.
ReplyDeleteGod, if there's one at all, must Himself not be free from bias, and I thank Him for keeping us above, off their 'dimension'..
@Anon: Sure i'd give it a read, though i'd better cultivate my own thoughts, for the path i chose is promising enough.
ReplyDelete@Ankit: Easier said than done.
@Eth: What she thinks is immaterial now, and it should be off 'their' dimension, rather :)
You might well have written just last three lines.
ReplyDelete@Metem: I know it is, and so proclaim that Amit takes that as, a COMPLIMENT
ReplyDeleteRationality for me is ability (or the choice) to think freely and fully. It is not as simple as it seems. Once upon a time, people might have accepted random things as facts. 'Oh the world if flat? Fine.' 'You can sleep while doing double somersaults in the air? Nice.'. Today if someone says 'Today will be lucky for you.', the good thing is that people will usually ask why. But accepting a response along the lines of 'You energy lines are mysteriously convergent with the harmonic flow of the cosmic chi.' is well, no better than what our 'naive' ancestors did. Fight the spread of misinformation!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of personal rationality, what you are speaking of a weighing of benefits. You can't strictly call it rationality as you can't measure all sides quantitatively. On the other hand, all rationality is not personal. Believing that the Earth is held up on the backs of an infinite chain of tortoises IS being irrational. And please don't say that everything we know is a lie. That's a bit of a cop out. :-)
@N : I could not and thus did not define rationality. Again its the same thing, some people prefer to walk alone, some would take an auto. Fair enough. You can't kill logic because you can't define logic too.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be proved by scientific methods isn't logically because though most of the theorems come from logical induction which finally leads to rational deduction. You can study the world through science, but how do we go about studying science in the first place? What will happen when some day one person claims that gravity is just a figment of imagination and no one can refute that because they cannot prove a counter example?
What i am saying that you can build concepts with logic but how do you build/define logic in the first place?
And more often than not when it comes to weighing both sides of an argument quantitatively most people tend to stick to their whims and fancies and rather measure it qualitatively.
I love to take decisions that help not just me but others too, but since i cannot force logic upon them, i let their intuition guide them where they go, and the same with me too.
Just that there are men who'll always stand out among the boys, and the reasons, are more intuitive then logically deducible.
In response to your argument about gravity, it was what logicians would call misplaced burden of proof. If you haven't already please check out this thing called 'Russell's Teapot'. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the sceptic. How do you prove that something does not exist? Do you turn the Universe upside down looking through every molecule to prove that the thing does not exist?
ReplyDelete"And more often than not when it comes to weighing both sides of an argument quantitatively most people tend to stick to their whims and fancies and rather measure it qualitatively." Exactly my point. How objective you are is what matters ultimately. The important thing is you cannot view everything in binary. The view that the Earth is flat and the view that the Earth spheroidal are not just 'two points of view'. MOUNTAINS of evidence supports one theory and there is nothing for the other. Too much personalization is not always a good thing. :)
I have to take issue with your intuition/logic argument. There is no little somebody in the brain that 'guides' intuition. There's just your brain and you. Logic (the way you use it) is a sequence of steps done consciously, while intuition is something works exactly the same as logic but unconsciously. Imagine you are solving a sudoku. You can scan through a column cell by cell to identify the digits that are missing. Or if you are experienced enough you can 'intuitively' pick out the missing digits. Is there something mysterious here? It's just logic with a bit of pattern recognition.
Weird I thought the exact same thing as u abt the definition of rationality. And I hate when people try to force their logic and sensibilities upon others. I have reason to believe that the boy who took the auto that day was u :P
ReplyDeleteI hope u put the last 3 lines just randomly. Coz if u think they are a logical deduction of the argument above it, then then I'm afraid there is no logical connection between the argument and the conclusion (at least by CAT standards). But then again ur logic is way beyond us lesser mortals, so I can't really comment!
Yes Sir, it was random. Though the last line of your comment still stays :)
ReplyDelete