Is it irrational to hate President Trump?

Happy_Killbot

I think it would be hard to argue that any emotions about anything are ever rational.

MayCaesar

As @Happy_Killbot mentioned, emotions are quite irrational fundamentally. There is some rationale behind emotions, but it does not lay in the space of logical rationality; it is a very primal biological entity.

As far as feelings towards individuals go, I tend to see the good in people and give them a break on the bad. I also do not judge their quality as persons by their views, words or actions. We all wrestle with our inner demons, and sometimes they get the better of us. I get along well with almost everyone, but with some people I do not; this is life, we are all different and not always compatible.

I would absolutely drink a cup of coffee with Donald; he is funny and entertaining, and every now and then you can hear a good practical advice from him. In my opinion, one should interact with everyone, even with people they like the least, and learn to make good out of those interactions. Some of the best pieces of wisdom I have picked up in my life came from my interactions with people I absolutely could not stand - it always turned out that there was more to them than I initially thought.

One of my biggest bullies at high school, who was probably the person I hated the most of all the people on Earth at the time, had my back at the most crucial and unexpected moment, as an example. He did not stop bullying me and did that systematically afterwards - however, that little glimpse into the good side of him changed my perspective on him dramatically. I find that giving everyone the benefit of doubt eventually causes everyone to show their good sides. None of us are bad or evil, some of us are just pretty deep down in our personal psychological pits and have a hard time bringing our brighter sides out. And it is those people you often learn the most from, as they show you the reflection of your own darkest parts and teach you to avoid them.

AlofRI

Our democracy AND Constitution are under attack, our allies are turning into our enemies and our enemies are becoming our "friends"(?). This PLANET is also being reduced to a smoldering garbage dump, white skin is also, again …. in vogue, …. and our IMPOTUS is backing it all.

I don't like it! If that makes me "irrational", so be it.

Happy_Killbot

@AlofRI I think what you need to recognize is that there is a definite separation between reasoning from emotion and reasoning from principals.

Consider this example of a logical fallacy known as appealing to science:

"It is scientifically confirmed that shooting people can kill them. Therefore we should ban all guns"

Whether or not you agree with gun control is irrelevant. Now consider this statement:

"It is scientifically confirmed that shooting people can kill them. Therefore we should shoot our enemies"

Perhaps now you can see the problem. You will see these types of arguments popping up in all kinds of debates and they are particularly common among unnamed conservatives, who's mantra is: "Facts don't care about your feelings"

What this ignores is the underlying values and principals that should be the basis of your arguments. In the first example the person likely values not killing people, so the fact that guns can kill seems like a valid argument. In the second example, the person values sovereignty, so killing for them is acceptable. 

Science and reason can only tell you what is true, it can not tell you what ought to be true or what you should do.

In the context of Trump, your values conflict with what trump does and says, I don't agree with 95% of it so it is perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with him and even hate him, but that doesn't make it rational.

YeshuaBought

AlofRI said:

Our democracy AND Constitution are under attack, our allies are turning into our enemies and our enemies are becoming our "friends"(?). This PLANET is also being reduced to a smoldering garbage dump, white skin is also, again …. in vogue, …. and our IMPOTUS is backing it all.

I don't like it! If that makes me "irrational", so be it.

I am so tired of both the left and the right dividing America! You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. I am a centrist, but i am voting for Trump, because I am a rational adult that can agree to disagree on some of the issues. Grow up.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought Does Trump really agree with most of your values?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot ;

***** I think it would be hard to argue that any emotions about anything are ever rational


That’s an interesting view K , but would you disagree there has to be some very powerful survival value that has selected for them over evolutionary time in order to compensate for all the  mayhem they may cause? 

John_C_87

The solution to having a fair right an left divide America is simple pace at only intervals...…………...

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought Does Trump really agree with most of your values?

I don't fully fit into either party, but social justice warriors are P ing me off right now. If you disagree, i I will respect you, but I am making the right choice for me. I consider myself a centrist.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee The evolutionary forces that have resulted in us being a certain way and preferring a specific set of actions, which are heavily influenced by emotions, and in more primitive life are the only thing guiding animal behavior, do not always constitute reasonable action.

In fact, as I have argued above, there can be no perfectly reasonable action, because these things are based on our values more than anything else.

Survival instinct is heavily evolved and deeply ingrained into our psyche. This does not mean that always taking survival action is reasonable. There is a human extinction movement that wants the human race to go extinct for example, because they value the survival of the planet over the survival of the human species, so they don't have kids and minimize their environmental impact.

Who is to say this isn't reasonable? If this isn't reasonable then neither are claims that humans should live, because there is no foundation for justifying either position. You can prove scientifically and with reason that anything is or isn't true, but you can never prove what ought to be true or what you ought to do. There is no universal truth except that what we made for ourselves.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought What kind's of things do you value in a president?

ZeusAres42

Emotions themselves are arational. They are not rational, nor irrational. However strong emotions may lead one to act irrationally.

Furthermore, I think it is worth mentioning that there is somewhat a difference between rationality and reason. For example, a person may hate trump and everything republican but then vote democrat when election is just round the corner. Now this action may be reasonable (regardless of the strength of their reasoning) but it definitely isn't rational given everything they currently stand for.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****The evolutionary forces that have resulted in us being a certain way and preferring a specific set of actions, which are heavily influenced by emotions, and in more primitive life are the only thing guiding animal behavior, do not always constitute reasonable action.

I agree , yet I think emotions are beneficial and necessary 

*****In fact, as I have argued above, there can be no perfectly reasonable action, because these things are based on our values more than anything else.

So for example while out walking you see a child about to run across a busy road you intervene to save her /him that  action available to you would bring about some valuable state of affairs, that fact is a reason for you to do that thing; is that not perfectly reasonable to do so? 

*****Survival instinct is heavily evolved and deeply ingrained into our psyche. This does not mean that always taking survival action is reasonable. 

Yes agreed , but it’s served us well look at fear for example as a child you probably went to close to a fire fear of being burnt stop you repeating this , maybe you went to close to a cliff edge fear of falling stops you doing this , a sudden shock of fear motivates you to flee from danger in an instant.

Fear increases the probability of avoiding things that have been previously perceived as a possible threat.

*****There is a human extinction movement that wants the human race to go extinct for example, because they value the survival of the planet over the survival of the human species, so they don't have kids and minimize their environmental impact.

Yes , their are always what most would term the “loony brigade “ but these are the exceptions 

****Who is to say this isn't reasonable? 

Well I think I can safely say that you and I and what I would loosely term the majority of citizens think it reasonable not to rob , rape and destroy each other , we realise by mostly adhering to a basic societal moral code we can get along with each other and if we did not think it reasonable we wouldn’t do it would we?

****If this isn't reasonable then neither are claims that humans should live, because there is no foundation for justifying either position. 

What do you mean a “foundation “ what foundation do I need to live as in who am I justifying myself to?

****You can prove scientifically and with reason that anything is or isn't true, but you can never prove what ought to be true or what you ought to do. There is no universal truth except that what we made for ourselves.

I don’t think the Is ought problem is really relevant here our view of truth matters. You may be a correspondence theorist when it comes to airplanes but a postmodernist when it comes to ethics or politics. But why hold different views of truth for different aspects of your life?

 I’ve argued in the past with young Earth creationists that Evolution is true they tell me it isn’t and they tell me science is actually on their side would you think me in error for holding this position?

I don’t have to prove what “ought” to be true as we mostly agree through necessity and social cohesion what works for us as a species as in the example I listed earlier. Certain things may not be “Universal truths” but we more or less have adapted to certain agreed upon truths as in we don’t rape , murder or destroy out neighbours I don’t need “Universal truths” to navigate my way through life nor does anyone else but we have a loosely defined version of truth which exactly like morality changes adapts and evolves from society to society 

Dee

irrational

/ɪˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: irrational

1. 1. 
   not logical or reasonable.

If one  believes Trump is a racist , a sexist and a bully based on what they’ve heard in the media how is not “reasonable” to dislike him intensely?

MayCaesar

@YeshuaBought

There is nothing wrong with a nation being divided. In fact, I would argue that if the nation is not divided, then there is no meaningful debate being had, and if that is the case, then the nation is stagnating intellectually and culturally, and that is a bad state to be in.

It is good that we actually openly discuss sensitive issues, instead of sweeping them under the radar of conformity, compromise and political correctness. It would be much worse if those issues were only discussed underground, and then one day exploded in something violent - that is what happens when people's concerns are systematically suppressed.

Let people be as divided politically as they can, so from the chaos something new can be born. At the same time, political disagreements do not have to manifest in personal fights, and you can give hugs to people from all parts of the political spectrum. Politics is a very small part of our lives, and while the media try their best to blow its importance out of proportion, there are far more important things in life. I would argue that you buying someone a snack to make their day better are doing much more good for this world, than you voting for any candidate or party.

AlofRI

YeshuaBought said:

AlofRI said:

Our democracy AND Constitution are under attack, our allies are turning into our enemies and our enemies are becoming our "friends"(?). This PLANET is also being reduced to a smoldering garbage dump, white skin is also, again …. in vogue, …. and our IMPOTUS is backing it all.

I don't like it! If that makes me "irrational", so be it.

I am so tired of both the left and the right dividing America! You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. I am a centrist, but i am voting for Trump, because I am a rational adult that can agree to disagree on some of the issues. Grow up.

There are "centrists" … and then there are centrists. Even centrists don't agree with each other on just what is the "center". To me you would have to be center right … and "right" has moved SOOO far from "center" IMO. You are backing a ma … guy who has no respect for women?? No respect for the Constitution or law? No respect for women who have been raped? A person who coldly separates children from their parents? A racist? That's a LONG way from MY "center".

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Let me try to explain this is a more visual way.

When something is rational, it will always be something like this:

Input data A + Environment B+ Time T => Rational Cause => Result C 

No matter what, as long as the input and environment are the same then the result will always be the same. But when we add in emotions:

Input data A + Environment B +Time T + Emotion E => Emotional cause =>  Result X, Y, Z

Not to ridiculous so far, but there is something important to recognize here: Emotion is a variable.

In other words, if you change your emotional response, you will come to a different outcome. In fact, having the same emotional state doesn't guarantee the same outcome.

So for the case of a child crossing the street about to get hit, you might think "I don't want a child to get hit. I'm going to save him" but that is not rational, that is rationalization. Consider if you thought: "I want our species to grow strong through evolution. I should let the child get hit so future generations will not be so dumb"

Neither of these positions is rational. In the case of Trump, the input data and environment is statistically the same. However, the emotional state of everyone is not the same. This is why Trump can say bigoted and borderline sexist or racist things, and act like a non-Christian and Christians eat it up for breakfast, because they are emotionally primed to do so, where as the outraged masses who still can't believe the election turned out this way find they hate him.

With emotion as a foundation for reason, you can come to flimsy conclusions at best. What we think is "rational" and what is actually rational are not the same thing, because evolution has primed us to believe and behave in a certain way.

Thus it is irrational to hate Trump based solely on the fact that he is a terrible person. Instead, you should oppose him because he is not the best for this country, and we can do much better than that.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Can you share some examples based on your individual rationale?

"I think it would be hard to argue that any emotions about anything are ever rational."

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Read above.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Are you maybe a disciple of Chaos?

"Let people be as divided politically as they can, so from the chaos something new can be born."

The 22 million illegal immigrants having 300 Sanctuary Cities catering to their criminality, is an example of chaos isn't it?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****Let me try to explain this is a more visual way.

When something is rational, it will always be something like this:

Input data A + Environment B+ Time T => Rational Cause => Result C 

No matter what, as long as the input and environment are the same then the result will always be the same. But when we add in emotions:

Input data A + Environment B +Time T + Emotion E => Emotional cause =>  Result X, Y, Z

Not to ridiculous so far, but there is something important to recognize here: Emotion is a variable.

In other words, if you change your emotional response, you will come to a different outcome. In fact, having the same emotional state doesn't guarantee the same outcome.

I get that my point remains emotions are necessary and beneficial 

*****So for the case of a child crossing the street about to get hit, you might think "I don't want a child to get hit. I'm going to save him" but that is not rational, that is rationalization. 

Of course it’s rational ..... Rational

based on or in accordance with reason or logic

Rationalization ......

the action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.

****Consider if you thought: "I want our species to grow strong through evolution. I should let the child get hit so future generations will not be so dumb"

Neither of these positions is rational. 

One is the other is not , if your scenario was rational every human being would loose a child as every child attempts to run across a busy street at some time 

****In the case of Trump, the input data and environment is statistically the same. However, the emotional state of everyone is not the same. This is why Trump can say bigoted and borderline sexist or racist things, and act like a non-Christian and Christians eat it up for breakfast, because they are emotionally primed to do so, where as the outraged masses who still can't believe the election turned out this way find they hate him.

Dislike of those you think are racist , bigoted and bullies I would say is perfectly reasonable 

****With emotion as a foundation for reason, you can come to flimsy conclusions at best

Who said it’s a foundation? Emotions are incredibly useful and can be a double edged sword but useful all the same 

. ****What we think is "rational" and what is actually rational are not the same thing, 

I disagree in some cases yes but how would you define what is actually rational? 

****because evolution has primed us to believe and behave in a certain way.

Evolution has served us fairly well so far 

****Thus it is irrational to hate Trump based solely on the fact that he is a terrible person. 

Really , I disagree intense dislike is natural with such individuals for me anyway 

*****Instead, you should oppose him because he is not the best for this country, and we can do much better than that.

That’s a given 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Usefulness does not a rational action make. The fact that emotions serve a pragmatic purpose does not make them rational, it just means that they good if you want to survive. Survival in itself, is not a rational position.

Right now you are trying to rationalize emotions as logical, when in fact they are not logical they are evolved traits to aid in our survival.

No, we wouldn't lose children because we would eventually evolve to know to not cross streets and avoid cars, or some other method such as being able to detect traffic much faster. Neither of these positions is rational, they are both rationalizations based on underlying values and emotions.

Again, just because emotions are useful in a pragmatic sense, doesn't mean they are rational. This is an irrelevant conclusion.

For something to be rational, it has to be based on logic and facts. Emotions are not based on logic or facts, therefore they are not rational. You can examine emotions rationally, but you can not draw rational conclusions from emotion. This is what I mean when I say "foundation" I mean that at the end of the day, your conclusions will have sourced from emotions, meaning if we peel back the layers of the argument or actions, at the end of the day we will come down to "because that's how I feel" as the explanation for a certain position.

Let's consider the stopping kids from running out in the street example, then move on to Trump:

 A: "Kids should not run out into a busy street, we should stop them"
Q: "Why should we stop them"
A: "Because if we don't they could get hurt or die"
Q: "Why should we not let kids die?"
A: " If every kid were to die, then the human race would cease to exist"
Q: "Why is it a problem if the human race ceases to exist?"
A: "because I like what humans do, and I want the human race to continue"
Q: "Why do you feel that way about humans?"
A: "I am a human and have a vested interest in our survival"
Q: "Where does this survival instinct come from?
A: "It was evolved over many generation"
Q: "If evolution had gone a different way, then what is stopping us from drawing a different conclusion about kids and streets?"
A: "Nothing, I guess. I just feel that way about humans, so I know it is right"

At the bottom of this argument is not a rational position, it is a position that evolution made us want, as a means to continue itself. Everything built on top of it is just one rationalization after another.

The same is true for Trump hate:

A: "I hate Trump"
Q: "Why do you hate Trump?"
A: "because he is bad for the country"
Q: "How do you know he is bad for the country?"
A: "<lists any number of specifics>"
Q: "Ok, but how can we say that any of those things are not the best course of action?"
A: "They are not what I want for the country, as they do not conform to my values"
Q: "Where do your values come from?"
A: "I was raised with some and developed others from life experience"
Q: "If someone had different values, could that mean they would draw different conclusions about what is right for the country, and therefore have different feelings about Trump?"
A: "I guess so, but I still don't like him"

This is how the logic goes, when based on emotion it is not  rational.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****Usefulness does not a rational action make. 

Well it certainly can and that’s not the only criteria involved 

**** The fact that emotions serve a pragmatic purpose does not make them rational, 

A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him /her. 

****it just means that they good if you want to survive. Survival in itself, is not a rational position.

How is it not a rational position?

****Right now you are trying to rationalize emotions as logical, when in fact they are not logical they are evolved traits to aid in our survival.

• Fear - After having one or more bad experiences, one learns to avoid situations that portend similar outcomes. In this way, one increases the probability of avoiding things that have been previously perceived as negative. Almost fell off a cliff? Don’t go near cliffs anymore. Almost eaten by a lion? Avoid lions.
• Desire - Sexual desires, specifically, increase one’s chance of producing offspring which leads to the continuation of your genetics and of your species.
• Love (friends & family) - I’m sure some would argue that love can be toxic but one cannot deny that it also leads to tighter bonds, loyalty, kinship, better collaboration, more successful child rearing, etc. Since humans are a social animal, love seems like an essential emotion for us to possess.
• Happiness / Sadness - These emotions can be thought of as progress reports or feedback from one’s body or mind. How am I doing? Not well? Then I’m low on dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, or endorphins and need to change something. Maybe I need more sleep, a better diet, or mor

How are these positions not logical?

****No, we wouldn't lose children because we would eventually evolve to know to not cross streets and avoid cars, or some other method such as being able to detect traffic much faster. 

Yes after prehaps millions of years of carnage to get to that stage , the way we do it up to now is logical 

****Neither of these positions is rational, they are both rationalizations based on underlying values and emotions.

I disagree 

****Again, just because emotions are useful in a pragmatic sense, doesn't mean they are rational. This is an irrelevant conclusion.

Yet I’ve demonstrated the reverse my conclusion is valid 

***For something to be rational, it has to be based on logic and facts. Emotions are not based on logic or facts, therefore they are not rational. 

You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

****You can examine emotions rationally, but you can not draw rational conclusions from emotion. This is what I mean when I say "foundation" I mean that at the end of the day, your conclusions will have sourced from emotions, meaning if we peel back the layers of the argument or actions, at the end of the day we will come down to "because that's how I feel" as the explanation for a certain position.

You still haven’t explained what this foundation you’re appealing to is also we all feel the same way about eminent danger this fear seizes us ignore it if you wish and instead attempt to rationalize it then what?

****Let's consider the stopping kids from running out in the street example, then move on to Trump:

 A: "Kids should not run out into a busy street, we should stop them"

Q: "Why should we stop them"

A: "Because if we don't they could get hurt or die"

Q: "Why should we not let kids die?"

A: " If every kid were to die, then the human race would cease to exist"

Q: "Why is it a problem if the human race ceases to exist?"

A: "because I like what humans do, and I want the human race to continue"

Q: "Why do you feel that way about humans?"

A: "I am a human and have a vested interest in our survival"

Q: "Where does this survival instinct come from?

A: "It was evolved over many generation"

Q: "If evolution had gone a different way, then what is stopping us from drawing a different conclusion about kids and streets?"

A: "Nothing, I guess. I just feel that way about humans, so I know it is right"

I love this armchair philosophical musing that throws up the most bizarre scenarios to make a point , so tell me do you apply that logic to your kids?

****At the bottom of this argument is not a rational position, it is a position that evolution made us want, as a means to continue itself. Everything built on top of it is just one rationalization after another.

Right , it’s perfectly rational to me to stop my kids running out on the street 

****The same is true for Trump hate:

A: "I hate Trump"

Q: "Why do you hate Trump?"

A: "because he is bad for the country"

Q: "How do you know he is bad for the country?"

A: "<lists any number of specifics>"

Q: "Ok, but how can we say that any of those things are not the best course of action?"

A: "They are not what I want for the country, as they do not conform to my values"

Q: "Where do your values come from?"

A: "I was raised with some and developed others from life experience"

Q: "If someone had different values, could that mean they would draw different conclusions about what is right for the country, and therefore have different feelings about Trump?"

A: "I guess so, but I still don't like him"

I dislike Trump as he’s a racist I don’t like racists , that works for me 

****This is how the logic goes, when based on emotion it is not  rational.

Yet I’ve demonstrated the opposite several times now 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I never said emotions stand in opposition of relevant thought, all I'm saying is they are mutually exclusive.

You have yet to demonstrate how usefulness dictates rationality, thus you draw fallacious conclusions.

"You still haven’t explained what this foundation you’re appealing to is also we all feel the same way about eminent danger this fear seizes us ignore it if you wish and instead attempt to rationalize it then what?"

That is objectively false. If it were true, then no one would commit suicide.

What you are totally missing here is that the foundation of what you call rational is not logic, it's emotion. It's only rational to save your kids from cars in so far as you love your kids and don't want them to get hurt.

If it were rational to hate Trump, then everyone would. Some people don't, that doesn't make them irrational, and it doesn't make you irrational. This right here is the reason so many are so divided, especially in politics.

The solipsistic assumption: "I feel a certain way about a person or candidate, therefore it is rational and everyone else is irrational" is not logically sound or reasonable, and that is exactly what Trump lovers/haters do.

There is no scientific test that can be done to always prove hatred of Trump, it is subjective. There is no right and wrong answer, in fact there can be none, the same way there can not be a correct answer to the question "is there a god"

P.S. Trump is not a racist. He is a psychopath, but not racist.

Plaffelvohfen

Sure it is irrational, but then Love is irrational too but quite normal, all emotions are... I don't pretend to be anything more than human and humans are irrational beings... 

So I genuinely and unashamedly despise that disgusting human being... He would be drowning a few feet in front of me and I'd just stare at him and laugh while he sinks, waving him goodbye as he goes under...

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****I never said emotions stand in opposition of relevant thought, all I'm saying is they are mutually exclusive.

You actually said ..... 

****For something to be rational, it has to be based on logic and facts. Emotions are not based on logic or facts, therefore they are not rational. 

I’ve already stated .......You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

*****You have yet to demonstrate how usefulness dictates rationality, thus you draw fallacious conclusions.

Again just to correct you as you actually stated ..... 

*****Usefulness does not a rational action make. 

I said ......Well it certainly can and that’s not the only criteria involved do you see the difference?

****That is objectively false. If it were true, then no one would commit suicide.

Objectively false? I don’t get your point 

****What you are totally missing here is that the foundation of what you call rational is not logic, 

If I call  fear rational is it not logical to fear a a charging Rhino? 

****it's emotion. It's only rational to save your kids from cars in so far as you love your kids and don't want them to get hurt.

Yes we are talking about  emotion . You have just agreed emotions can be rational.

****If it were rational to hate Trump, then everyone would. 

That’s a strange conclusion to reach 

****Some people don't, that doesn't make them irrational, and it doesn't make you irrational. This right here is the reason so many are so divided, especially in politics.

I still dislike racists and bullies 

**** The solipsistic assumption: "I feel a certain way about a person or candidate, therefore it is rational and everyone else is irrational" is not logically sound or reasonable, and that is exactly what Trump lovers/haters do.

Take it up with them 

****There is no scientific test that can be done to always prove hatred of Trump, it is subjective. 

Why do I need Science to tell me whether to like or dislike? 

****There is no right and wrong answer, in fact there can be none, the same way there can not be a correct answer to the question "is there a god"

If Trump was another Hitler / Stalin would their be a right / wrong answer?

****P.S. Trump is not a racist. He is a psychopath, but not racist.

I believe he is a racist and a psychopath 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee No, I didn't say that. Emotions not being rational does not mean they are opposed, The same way donkeys are not based on logic therefore are not rational. The two are mutually exclusive, meaning you can have one without the other, or having one doesn't guarantee having the other, or it is possible to have neither.
 
I don't think you are trying to get my point, so let me change tactics.

Many types of plants have evolved toxic chemicals and natural poisons to defend themselves from predators. Is this based on rational thought?

Nazi Eugenicists concluded that humans could be made into better genetically superior versions of ourselves through selective breeding, the same way many domesticated plants and animals have been. Is this based on rational thought?

One day a man gets angry at a politician who he believes is racist and sexist, so he buys a rifle and waits for the politician's motorcade. Is this based on rational thought?


My point is, no one has the authority to say that anything is or isn't rational if that thought or action is based on emotion, because emotions themselves are not rational.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****No, I didn't say that. 

Here it is again .....****

 For something to be rational, it has to be based on logic and facts. Emotions are not based on logic or facts, therefore they are not rational. 

I’ve already stated .......You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

*****Emotions not being rational does not mean they are opposed, The same way donkeys are not based on logic therefore are not rational. The two are mutually exclusive, meaning you can have one without the other, or having one doesn't guarantee having the other, or it is possible to have neither.

 

I don't think you are trying to get my point, so let me change tactics.

Many types of plants have evolved toxic chemicals and natural poisons to defend themselves from predators. Is this based on rational thought?

I get your point , emotion is a by product of rational processes “Rational” carries the connotation of “intellectual” and “logical,” however the intellect is a tool that’s just as often used to justify irrationality—and logic is a narrow subset of rational thought dealing only with abstractions.

Self-expression is also an unquestionably rational choice for social animals like us, whose survival depends on what is essentially a voluntary support network. And emotions are instrumental when soliciting empathy.

*****Nazi Eugenicists concluded that humans could be made into better genetically superior versions of ourselves through selective breeding, the same way many domesticated plants and animals have been. Is this based on rational thought?

One day a man gets angry at a politician who he believes is racist and sexist, so he buys a rifle and waits for the politician's motorcade. Is this based on rational thought?

Rational  emotions are rational, and irrational emotions are irrational

****My point is, no one has the authority to say that anything is or isn't rational if that thought or action is based on emotion, 

That’s incorrect as I’ve said before I see a rhino charging I’m seized with fear I flee , I  say it’s rational to flee and that’s based on an emotional response , why would I care whether I have authority to say so? 

****because emotions themselves are not rational.

Rational ones certainly are .... To cite another philosopher, Patricia Greenspan,

The category of emotions covers a disputed territory, but clear examples include fear, anger, joy, pride, sadness, disgust, shame, contempt and the like. Such states are commonly thought of as antithetical to reason, disorienting and distorting practical thought. However, there is also a sense in which emotions are factors in practical reasoning, understood broadly as reasoning that issues in action. At the very least emotions can function as ‘enabling’ causes of rational decision-making (despite the many cases in which they are disabling) insofar as they direct attention toward certain objects of thought and away from others. They serve to heighten memory and to limit the set of salient practical options to a manageable set, suitable for ‘quick-and-dirty’ decision-making.(Greenspan 2002, p. 206)

Happy_Killbot

@Dee The way you are interpenetrating that statement is still not what I said. The two are mutually exclusive.

"I get your point , emotion is a by product of rational processes “Rational” carries the connotation of “intellectual” and “logical,” however the intellect is a tool that’s just as often used to justify irrationality—and logic is a narrow subset of rational thought dealing only with abstractions."

You do not get my point, this isn't what I am saying at all.

Emotions are not rational because they have no logical foundation.

"Rational  emotions are rational, and irrational emotions are irrational"

This oxymoron proves my point, if there can be rational or irrational emotions, then the two must have nothing to do with each other.

Running from a Rhino in fear is only rational if you want to live, which in itself is not rational because there is nothing that denotes the necessity to live except for one desiring it. In order for something to be rational, it must have a complete set of logical inferences from start to finish.

With emotions, and specifically with hating certain politicians, the end conclusion can only be the assumptions. You can not prove anything, you can not learn anything, it is just circular reasoning.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

irrational

/ɪˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: irrational

1. 1. 
   not logical or reasonable.

If one  believes Trump is a racist , a sexist and a bully based on what they’ve heard in the media how is not “reasonable” to dislike him intensely?

@Dee emotions themselves are neither rational or irrational; they're arational. However, emotions can influence how one thinks and/or acts.  However, if you don't like a political candidate then it's certainly rational not to vote for them as this coincides with your current worldview albeit this isn't really a good reason to not vote for them. Oftentimes people forget there is a distinction between reason, rationality, and logic. Rationality is about acting in accordance with one's own worldview. Reason and logic are more about thinking objectively and more critically.

However, don't hold me to this. It's been a while since I read up about reason, rationality and logic. I might need to reference some academic sources. But I'm pretty sure what I said was accurate.

TKDB

Hate for some, is apparently easy for to mindfully engage in, especially when hateful individuals do hateful things?

It could be easy to hate President Trump.

It would appear that Hillary Clinton disliked Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, because her publicly covered actions, seem to shed light, on her actions?

Hillary felt like the Presidency, was hers, basically by default?

I wonder if some dislike Hillary Clinton for disqualifying herself from becoming the POTUS, because of her behind the scenes actions in regards to Bernie Sanders, and for the disappearance of her 30,000 emails?

She tampered with the 2016 Election, and Comey, gave her a pass for her illogical actions.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****The way you are interpenetrating that statement is still not what I said. The two are mutually exclusive.

You do not get my point, this isn't what I am saying at all.

*****Emotions are not rational because they have no logical foundation.

That’s simply not true , there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic.

****(This oxymoron proves my point, if there can be rational or irrational emotions, then the two must have nothing to do with each other.

It proves you do not  acknowledge the fact there are rational and irrational emotions nothing else , they’re still emotions 

****Running from a Rhino in fear is only rational if you want to live, 

Otherwise it’s irrational 

*****which in itself is not rational because there is nothing that denotes the necessity to live except for one desiring it. 

That’s makes no sense at all  , rationality includes agency (the ability to make a choice), logic (the ability to apprehend implications of one’s choices), and self-interest. 

*****In order for something to be rational, it must have a complete set of logical inferences from start to finish.

Where do you get this stuff from? You seem to sticking to a rigid definition of the term rational which makes no sense at all there can be no logic or rationality without emotion .....Read below ....

Wiki ......

Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason.[Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy,[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science.

*****With emotions, and specifically with hating certain politicians, the end conclusion can only be the assumptions.

That again makes no sense , did Jews who fled Nazi Germany do so in error as they certainly hated Hitler?

 ****You can not prove anything, you can not learn anything, 

If I flee from a Rhino who am I trying to prove anything to? 

Of course you can learn something you do so from every experience do you deny this?

****it is just circular reasoning.

It’s not , the only one using it is you as you keep appealing to a rigid form of rationality which may not be quiet circular but is certainly tautological 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

****emotions themselves are neither rational or irrational; they're arational. 

***** arational

/eɪˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: arational

1. not based on or governed by logical reasoning.

Again I cite an example of one being seized with fear at the sight of a charging Rhino running towards you , is you decision to run logical?

****However, emotions can influence how one thinks and/or acts.  However, if you don't like a political candidate then it's certainly rational not to vote for them as this coincides with your current worldview albeit this isn't really a good reason to not vote for them. 

Yes , logic and rationality cannot work without emotions

****Oftentimes people forget there is a distinction between reason, rationality, and logic. Rationality is about acting in accordance with one's own worldview. Reason and logic are more about thinking objectively and more critically. 

Armchair philosophy like this topic has people embracing absurdities and attempting to put them onto real world situations which isn’t the way the world works. People like Plato who was a rationalist thought his way of thinking was paramount and considered the mind primary and the actual data of experience secondary and of course he was wrong 

*****However, don't hold me to this. It's been a while since I read up about reason, rationality and logic. I might need to reference some academic sources. But I'm pretty sure what I said was accurate. 

I agree with you mostly , just on the term arational regarding emotions , do you think me wrong on this?

Happy_Killbot

@Dee The fact that you say "the fact there are rational and irrational emotions" Proves that there can be no causal connection between the two, because if some are one thing, and others are something else, then it proves that nothing correlates them in any way, and the existence of one doesn't mean the other exists, therefore the two are mutually exclusive, and I can rest my case. 



Here is a simple litmus test to prove the deeper point and greater understanding.

"Is there any way that a thought or assumption founded in a particular emotion can reach multiple conclusions which are different from the implications of that emotion with a certain amount of evidence?"

That's fairly abstract, so let me break it down with an example.

Bob and Alice do not get along. One day after Alice gets voted chairman of the there stamp club, while the two are having a heated argument, Bob thinks to himself: "Alice is really getting on my nerves. I should play a mean prank on her"  Then he thinks to himself: "If I play a prank on her, then she might step down from her position" he then further thinks: "If she steps down, then I can take that chair and get the power and prestige"

You would argue that that line of thinking is rational, because each step is founded in logic and follows from the previous statement. I argue that there in no connection between the two, because the first statement is in itself irrational. To show this in action, consider this alternate line of logic:

Bob thinks to himself: "Alice is really getting on my nerves. I should play a mean prank on her." "If I play a prank on her, she might get mad and seek revenge." Then concludes: "If she seeks revenge it will further worsen relations between us and make it hard for me to get her position"

This line of thought also follows from previous statements. Due to this, it fails the test I provided and I can not say that either are rational thought.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot


I honestly don’t get what you’re saying or trying to prove anymore but you seem to be trying to disprove arguments I haven’t made let’s cut to the chase you said ..........Emotions are not rational because they have no logical foundation.

That’s simply not true , there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee At no point was I trying to disprove your arguments. I was only ever trying to prove my own.

Which is, and to reiterate for the 6th time now, RATIONALITY AND EMOTION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

Having one does not guarantee the other, they do not correlate, something based on emotion is not based on reason, and if that thing is hatred of Trump, then it just is, and trying to frame it as rational is a waste of time, because at the end of the day, it's based on emotion, because hate is not logic, but emotion.

Hatred of Trump can be used to justify hatred of Trump, it can not be used to justify complex rational conclusions.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

 ****RATIONALITY AND EMOTION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

I disagree 

****Having one does not guarantee the other, they do not correlate, 

They actually do,  they work in tandem 

****something based on emotion is not based on reason

The idea that emotion impedes logic is pervasive and wrong. (Actually, it’s not even wrong.) 

, ****and if that thing is hatred of Trump, then it just is, and trying to frame it as rational is a waste of time, 

It’s a waste of time to dislike?

*****because at the end of the day, it's based on emotion, because hate is not logic, but emotion.

Hate is intense dislike , I intensely dislike racism how is that not logical? 

****Hatred of Trump can be used to justify hatred of Trump, 

Justify to who? 

****it can not be used to justify complex rational conclusions.

It can as I keep demonstrating 

ZeusAres42

@Dee

I didn't say actions and/or the ability to make decisions in imminent situations wasn't a rational process. This absolutely is rational. 

I said emotions by themselves are arational. 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Ahh right , sorry I was reading on the fly ......

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I'm starting to see why some people think you are an annoying 14 year old.

I didn't say that they don't work in tandem, I said they do not correlate and that they are mutually exclusive, which just means they have nothing to do with each other.

For example, I can show that some people who have died in the past year had an office job. In fact, extrapolation of trends indicates that everyone who has an office job will die, therefore, having an office job leads to death right?
No! this is faulty thinking. Just because some people who have an office job died in the past year does not mean that having an office job leads to death, what causes death is totally unrelated to having an office job, the two are Mutually exclusive.

My argument about emotions is the same way. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that it is rational. Just because you are reaching rational conclusions doesn't mean that emotion wasn't involved. When they do correlate, it is coincidence. We know this is true, not philosophically, but literally, because sometimes they don't.

Let's consider the big orange man himself- if you read "A warning by Anonymous" a book about what the Trump presidency is like from inside the oval office, written by a yet unnamed white house official, you will see that most of Trump's actions and decisions are based on impulse and emotion. If you want to argue that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that in fact emotions always lead to rational choices, then you would have to accept that every one of Trump's emotion based actions are in fact, rational ones.

You haven't done or said a single thing to demonstrate that there must be a causal link between the two and you can't because there is none, you don't have any logic, just a lot of conviction.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

Ahh right , sorry I was reading on the fly ......

@Dee

In regard to the example you gave me the answer is yes it is rational to run away from a perceived threat as opposed to say, taking out chair and ordering a pizza and laughing at the perceived threat coming at you. In the  lattercase you are most definitely not acting rationally.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Useful things those emotions , life would be meaningless without them I think 

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaBought

There is nothing wrong with a nation being divided. In fact, I would argue that if the nation is not divided, then there is no meaningful debate being had, and if that is the case, then the nation is stagnating intellectually and culturally, and that is a bad state to be in.

It is good that we actually openly discuss sensitive issues, instead of sweeping them under the radar of conformity, compromise and political correctness. It would be much worse if those issues were only discussed underground, and then one day exploded in something violent - that is what happens when people's concerns are systematically suppressed.

Let people be as divided politically as they can, so from the chaos something new can be born. At the same time, political disagreements do not have to manifest in personal fights, and you can give hugs to people from all parts of the political spectrum. Politics is a very small part of our lives, and while the media try their best to blow its importance out of proportion, there are far more important things in life. I would argue that you buying someone a snack to make their day better are doing much more good for this world, than you voting for any candidate or party.

I respect your position, but I disagree. I am a centrist, so I am equally P'd off at liberals, and conservatives. The truth is, i have time and time again, gotten equal amounts of hate, from both. Look at how @Dee is treating me on that other debate, for an example of liberal hate, then look at my abortion debates where @RickyD is lying and saying I am not a Christian, for disagreeing with his opinion. I am F'ing done with politcs.

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****** Look at how @Dee is treating me on that other debate, for an example of liberal hate,

I called you out on your racism you then went on a rant about how you were raped and that in some way means you cannot be held accountable for your racism , grow up you child 

Why you keep calling me a liberal is beyond me 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

****** Look at how @Dee is treating me on that other debate, for an example of liberal hate,

I called you out on your racism you then went on a rant about how you were raped and that in some way means you cannot be held accountable for your racism , grow up you child 

Why you keep calling me a liberal is beyond me 

Leave me alone.

MayCaesar

@YeshuaBought

Politics is a swamp that brings out the worst in people. That is the way to deal with the problem: to not pay much attention to these political games, and to dismiss comments from people too emotionally invested in it to be able to provide a rational feedback to your ideas. 

It is a necessary evil: without politics, there can be only limited cultural progress in a society. But you do not have to be a part of that evil, is my point. You can safely ignore all the politics as a background noise, and nothing will change to the worse in your life, while virtually everything will change to the better.


@Happy_Killbot

One could make the argument that emotions have been developed in us through evolution, and each strong negative emotion such as hatred sends important signals to our brain regarding our safety. From this standpoint, emotions can be rational, as long as you interpret them correctly: as a biological reaction to external stimuli.

However, if you give a far-fetched interpretation to your hatred, such as assume that it means that the person you hate is a bad person purely due to the way you feel - then, indeed, you are being irrational.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I would still argue that emotion and rationality are mutually exclusive. Just because you are doing something rational or thinking rationally, does not automatically mean that what you are doing is rational.

In the case of evolved traits, I have actually made the point above that this does not guarantee rational thinking, rather it is a shortcut for survival.

There really isn't anything rational about wanting anything in particular, including survival. At the bottom of every action we take, there is no logic or rationality, it just is and there is nothing that guarantees that it should be a certain way, horrifying as that is, it is reality.

Consider if you peel back the layers one by one, @Dee likes to use the example of a rhino charging, so I will stick with that.

A:  rhino was charging, so I got out of the way.
Q: what made you get out of the way?
A: Fear did.
Q: Why were you afraid?
A: The rhino could have killed me.
Q: Why don't you want to die?
A: Because I can't do anything after that.
Q: Why does it matter that you should be able to do things?
A: I just want to, okay!

At some point you reach a singularity in this type of reasoning, either an assumption or unfounded principal. What this means is that all of what we call "reason" when it is sourced from emotions isn't reason, its rationalizations. Especially in the case of the rhino, you don't go through this logical process ever time your life is in danger, you just react. It isn't rational, it's hard-programmed survival instinct.

From this perspective, you can get whatever conclusions you want and have them be perfectly rational, because they are not based on fundamental truths, but rather subjective assumptions, many of which are evolved traits.

In the case of hating Trump, it is not a rational truth that you should hate him, and any reasons anyone provides are ad-hoc rationalizations rather than reasons. This is why politics is such a swamp as you call it, rational thinking is practically non-existent and emotions run wild. The assumption that emotions are somehow rational just dumps a ton of gas on that dumpster fire.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaBought

Politics is a swamp that brings out the worst in people. That is the way to deal with the problem: to not pay much attention to these political games, and to dismiss comments from people too emotionally invested in it to be able to provide a rational feedback to your ideas. 

It is a necessary evil: without politics, there can be only limited cultural progress in a society. But you do not have to be a part of that evil, is my point. You can safely ignore all the politics as a background noise, and nothing will change to the worse in your life, while virtually everything will change to the better.


@Happy_Killbot

One could make the argument that emotions have been developed in us through evolution, and each strong negative emotion such as hatred sends important signals to our brain regarding our safety. From this standpoint, emotions can be rational, as long as you interpret them correctly: as a biological reaction to external stimuli.

However, if you give a far-fetched interpretation to your hatred, such as assume that it means that the person you hate is a bad person purely due to the way you feel - then, indeed, you are being irrational.

True enough. I agree. i am not going to pay attention, to our resident slanderer, who is telling such lies, about me. no, I am not refering to you. You are awesome.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

You’re still wrong maybe you should research the topic ......

You  may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

The neurobiologist Francisco Damasio points out that rationality depends upon a deeper system of regulation that consists largely of emotions and feelings. Emotion can disrupt reasoning in certain circumstances, but without emotion there is no reasoning at all. “Traditional cognitive models don’t understand that reduction in emotion may constitute an equally important source of irrational behavior,” Damasio claims.

Damasio had a patient named Elliot who was a successful businessman. Elliot was diagnosed with a small brain tumor. During the operation, the neurosurgeon removed the tumor but accidentally cut the connection between the frontal lobe (center for thought) and the cerebral amygdala (center for emotions). When he recovered, Elliot had changed. When Elliot recalled tragedies of his life, he spoke with a coldness and detachment incompatible with the severity of the events. He spoke as if he was a spectator instead of a participant. Damasio concluded that the operation had separated Elliot from his emotions. He could think, but he couldn’t feel.

Elliot retained his intelligence, but he had become completely inept at his work. Without his emotions, he couldn’t make any decisions. Damasio asked Elliot to pick a time for the next interview. Elliot responded with a long explanation about the pros and cons of various times, but couldn’t choose one. He simply didn’t have a preference. The rational center of the mind can generate a series of alternatives and arguments, but decisions require an additional faculty. The mind needs to evaluate the emotional weight of each option and choose by way of feeling.

Unconscious feeling, on the other hand, can overwhelm your decision process. Appropriate decisions require a state of relaxed awareness, a state is difficult to attain without training in mindfulness.

In the following video, you can see how it is difficult to be rational if you’re too emotional, but it is impossible to be rational if you are not emotional.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee "You  may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions."

I don't believe this, and I'm not wrong, also there is no video.