Adaptation

[Kai]

Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...

In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.

Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".

I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.

Yes, but that'd be the wrong way around, eh? Government/business productivity is a means, not an ends.

Thank you for saying it. There's this screwed up notion that hard work in and of itself is an end. You hear it at funerals, "he was a hard worker". Same goes for productivity. Working hard on WHAT, producing WHAT? Happiness? Love? Enjoyment? Contentment? I mean, we're no longer living in an environment where we have to work constantly for our survival (and research suggests that hunter-gatherers worked less than we do weekly in any case); productivity systems like David Allen's GTD are to increase efficiency of obtaining goals, not to make meaningless output. What is the point of our lives? Certainly not pushing papers faster.

[Cosmic Joker]

I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.

You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.

[Adios]

I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.

You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.

Work to live, do not live to work.

[Cosmic Joker]

I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.

You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.

Work to live, do not live to work.

Surely that's a belief you're bringing from outside of pragmatism. In the same way that maths can tell you how to discover the circumference of a circle but not why I should, pragmatism could tell you how best to carry out your belief that we should "Work to live, do not live to work." but not why that is desirable.

[Kai]

I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.

You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.

Work to live, do not live to work.

Yeah. Efficiency is not laziness, though to some people it would look the same because a very efficient person spends little time working, simply because he knows his goals and puts in the minimal necessary effort to achieve them.

Also, you want someone else to tell you your goals?

[Cosmic Joker]

Also, you want someone else to tell you your goals?

No, I was simply pointing out an apparent limit to this pragmatic theory. It has no real means for assessing the desirability of goals. I suppose this is why someone proposed some external moral restraints

[Roaring Biscuit!]

one the "goals" that might be "desirable", could include pragmatism itself, being able to adequately respond to change.

Secondly, see cramulus' earlier post.

One could use ideas from other religions/general information to pragmagically decide what your goals should be given your current situation/environment.

x

edd

[Adios]

one the "goals" that might be "desirable", could include pragmatism itself, being able to adequately respond to change.

Secondly, see cramulus' earlier post.

One could use ideas from other religions/general information to pragmagically decide what your goals should be given your current situation/environment.

x

edd

I think Crams 'sliding scale' idea was genius.

[The Johnny]

I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.

Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)

Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.

Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.

[Adios]

I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.

Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)

Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.

Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.

Try thinking for yourself, just once.

[Kai]

I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.

Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)

Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.

Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.

Guessing the Password: having a placeholder for a particular term but not actually understanding it nor having any practical ability with it.

"Emotions are irrational" is something I've heard before, and it's probably a meme that started with so and so philosopher, but after reading the Less Wrong sequences I can clearly see how emotions are not irrational if they are matched to the circumstances.

Mind you, there are two different types of rationality, epistemic (maximizing correlation between map and territory) and instrumental (optimizing one's own life, IOW, winning). Epistemically, emotions are neurophysical/behavioral reactions to environmental/somatic stimuli. Instrumentally, when my emotions are appropriate to the circumstances, they are rational (falling in line with my optimization of myself). Being "Spock calm" all the time is not instrumentally rational, and it IS instrumentally rational to have emotions appropriate to circumstances.

Of course, you can ask what circumstances and emotions would be inappropriate? How about getting angry at someone who means nothing to you and has done no harm to you. Or grieving at the death of someone you have never met and has never had any effect on your life. Or being happy at an event that has caused you and people you love great pain. Those are obvious sorts of emotional irrationality. More subtle are the types where emotions are carried for extended periods, far past the point that they are relevant. I have many examples in my life of anxiety attached to events that happened long ago and have no relevance anymore yet I hold onto them as if they mattered.

So, yes, there are appropriate (rational) and inappropriate (irrational) emotions depending on circumstance. But no emotion is inappropriate in all circumstances.

[The Johnny]

Try thinking for yourself, just once.

I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.

And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.

[Adios]

Try thinking for yourself, just once.

I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.

And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.

Not according to your posts. I don't care what you think.

[The Johnny]

Guessing the Password: having a placeholder for a particular term but not actually understanding it nor having any practical ability with it.

"Emotions are irrational" is something I've heard before, and it's probably a meme that started with so and so philosopher, but after reading the Less Wrong sequences I can clearly see how emotions are not irrational if they are matched to the circumstances.

Mind you, there are two different types of rationality, epistemic (maximizing correlation between map and territory) and instrumental (optimizing one's own life, IOW, winning). Epistemically, emotions are neurophysical/behavioral reactions to environmental/somatic stimuli. Instrumentally, when my emotions are appropriate to the circumstances, they are rational (falling in line with my optimization of myself). Being "Spock calm" all the time is not instrumentally rational, and it IS instrumentally rational to have emotions appropriate to circumstances.

Of course, you can ask what circumstances and emotions would be inappropriate? How about getting angry at someone who means nothing to you and has done no harm to you. Or grieving at the death of someone you have never met and has never had any effect on your life. Or being happy at an event that has caused you and people you love great pain. Those are obvious sorts of emotional irrationality. More subtle are the types where emotions are carried for extended periods, far past the point that they are relevant. I have many examples in my life of anxiety attached to events that happened long ago and have no relevance anymore yet I hold onto them as if they mattered.

So, yes, there are appropriate (rational) and inappropriate (irrational) emotions depending on circumstance. But no emotion is inappropriate in all circumstances.

I appreciate your explanation even after i agreed.

Yes, im guessing i heard or read that kind of idea of somewhere and i just instinctively recalled it, might be Nietzsche?

Also, ill admit, sometimes i jump the gun a bit against rationality, with my school curriculum, personal orientation et al.

[The Johnny]

Try thinking for yourself, just once.

I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.

And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.

Not according to your posts. I don't care what you think.

NO CB, MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!