Is it irrational to hate President Trump?

Happy_Killbot

@Dee The example you give serves my point very nicely.

If severing the emotional connection between the frontal lobe and cerebral amygdala results in an individual capable of thinking rationally, but being unable feel emotionally, then it means that in fact there was never any connection between rationality and emotion, and the two are separate entities that are mutually exclusive.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****/The example you give serves my point very nicely.

Wow ! You’re one sore loser take your correction like a man 

It doesn’t try reading it slowly ........

****If severing the emotional connection between the frontal lobe and cerebral amygdala results in an individual capable of thinking rationally, 

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

So that’s your idea of a rational individual?

*****but being unable feel emotionally, then it means that in fact there was never any connection between rationality and emotion, and the two are separate entities that are mutually exclusive.

They still work in tandem as I keep explaining 

. 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.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****** I don't believe this, and I'm not wrong,

I know neuroscientists and psychologists must be wrong  

*****also there is no video

Whats the point you didn’t even read or comprehend the article 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

****/The example you give serves my point very nicely.

Wow ! You’re one sore loser take your correction like a man 

It doesn’t try reading it slowly ........

****If severing the emotional connection between the frontal lobe and cerebral amygdala results in an individual capable of thinking rationally, 

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

So that’s your idea of a rational individual?

*****but being unable feel emotionally, then it means that in fact there was never any connection between rationality and emotion, and the two are separate entities that are mutually exclusive.

They still work in tandem as I keep explaining 

. 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.

You really love your ad homenims, and lies!

Dee

@YeshuaBought

**** You really love your ad homenims, and lies!

You really love your ad homenims, and lies!

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I'm still convinced you have no idea what my argument even is.

If emotion is the basis of rationality, then it really isn't rational now is it? Everything that comes from emotion is rationalization, not rational thought.

Let's go back to that point I made about Trump a little bit ago. Is every impulse and emotion based thought made by Trump rational?

Right now, you would be arguing it is, where as I am arguing that he isn't rational, and neither is anyone who hates him "just 'cause"

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

**** You really love your ad homenims, and lies!

You really love your ad homenims, and lies!

Yep, you're trolling, and lying too. Go to Hell, .

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****Yep, you're trolling, and lying too. Go to Hell,

Jesus would hate you 

Yep, you're a racist , you’re trolling, and lying to go to Hell,

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Well, if you interpret rationality this way, then you have to come to the conclusion that nothing can possibly be rational. Any logical argument you can make, for example, fundamentally rests on the assumption that logic somehow describes some inherent properties of the structure of reality, and that assumption, in turn, can only be justified on the logical grounds - so you get into the infinite loop which traps even the most basic assumptions we have in itself.

That is not how I interpret rationality, however. To me, rationality means basing your beliefs and actions on somewhat rigorous and logical analysis of the observations around you. It is rational to not drive at the speed of 150 mph in a narrow alley, because even the most basic analysis will tell you how dangerous that is - but it is irrational to not eat tomatoes just because your grandmother told you at some point that they are poisonous (which, by the way, was a pretty common belief among European peasants up until a few centuries ago). In both cases your choice is based on some reasoning, but in the first case the reasoning is based on a somewhat logical analysis of the information you have about the world, while in the second case it is based on one single data point.

Further, emotions in themselves are neither rational nor irrational, but your interpretation of them can be. To that end, I would distinguish "hatred" as an emotion from "hatred" as a point of view. "Hatred" as an emotion exists in the moment and may disappear in a few seconds; "hatred" as a point of view can be a permanent state, however. It seems to me that, in case of "hating Trump", we are talking about the latter case, and hating someone permanently is certainly irrational.

But suppose you are experiencing a momentary strongly negative feeling towards someone; you, again, could say that you hate them. However, if you are a logical enough person, able to tame your emotions, then, instead of jumping to conclusions such as, "That person is obviously terrible", you can ask yourself instead, "What makes me experience this emotion?" More often than not you will find that the problem actually is not in that person, but in you: that person's words or actions stirred something in you, some insecurity you never wanted to face, and that "triggered" you, for the lack of the better world. If you develop a habit to look for such triggers and to not hold them activating against the people you are interacting with, then you can think and act very rationally even under intense emotional pressure.

We all at some points of our lives told people we deeply care about overall how terrible of human beings they are, based on a momentary negative feeling. Entire relationships and marriages often collapse due to one single such incident, causing a downward spiral of worse and worse incidents. Yet it does not have to be this way; we can learn to disassociate how we feel at the moment from our general outlook on the world. We can keep in mind that everyone makes mistakes, and someone saying something nasty to us ones does not make them into a bad person, worthy of permanent contempt.
This does not, of course, mean necessarily that there are no bad people overall, and no people worthy of permanent contempt. But it does mean that we should not confuse how we feel about someone at the moment from who they are as a person. It is okay and, possibly, rational to hate Trump at the moment for something he just said (I would argue that it is still impractical, but it is not a very big deal) - but if you generalize it to "Trump is a terrible person" based just on how you are feeling, then you are being irrational.

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

****Yep, you're trolling, and lying too. Go to Hell,

Jesus would hate you 

Yep, you're a racist , you’re trolling, and lying to go to Hell,

If the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****I'm still convinced you have no idea what my argument even is.

Because you’re not listening and you still refuse to 

****If emotion is the basis of rationality, then it really isn't rational now is it? 

For the 24th time now I stated emotions work in tandem with reason 

****Everything that comes from emotion is rationalization, not rational thought.

That makes no sense I’ve explained this ad nauseum with my Rhino example 

****Let's go back to that point I made about Trump a little bit ago. Is every impulse and emotion based thought made by Trump rational?

It’s not it’s irrational and some may be rational as in fleeing a Rhino , I’ve also explained the difference between positive and negative emotions 

****Right now, you would be arguing it is, where as I am arguing that he isn't rational, 

I wouldn’t , yet you keep inventing arguments I’m not making 

****and neither is anyone who hates him "just 'cause"

Another case of you inventing something I didn’t say you also totally ignore what you cannot answer I asked you was it irrational to detest Hitler you couldn’t answer , also why do you resort to making stuff up ? 

I never made a “just cause” argument regards Trump , why are you so childish? 

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****bIf the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me

If the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

****bIf the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me

If the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me

you are a , and a troll. You don't have the right to lie, or troll. I have reported you, and the abuse stops, now.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, with only two minor modifications.

First, If there is an objective reality, then there is such a thing as rationality, which is just any derivative of that body of information which constitutes said objective reality. Obviously, we can't know that but we assume it is true because there really are not any other options and it is useful to do so. This assumption is not rational however.

Perhaps this is just semantic, but I would say that emotions are still irrational, not because they can not be rational, but because there is nothing making them rational, thus emotion and rationality are mutually exclusive, and knowing one piece of information about one tells you nothing about the other. It is possible for something to be both rational and emotional, irrational and emotional, rational and emotionless, and irrational and emotionless. All of those are possible.

There are problems that arise from the assumption that emotions would be necessarily rational. Suppose there was someone or something that was very intelligent, but was angry at everyone because he had a bad childhood. This person could easily use his intelligence to take advantage of people, and given the right resources do a lot of damage. If we take emotion as an acceptable foundation for rational thought, then this is technically justified, and nothing makes these actions more rational than if this same person used his intelligence to help people by producing new medicines or technologies. 

It isn't rational to say "I hate Trump" because that is the starting point, from which rationality may be used to further that goal, but the original emotion based assumption is in itself, not rational, and I think a great deal of suffering could be avoided if only people recognized that.

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****** If the libel does not stop, i will report you. You don't have the right to lie about me

Dee

@YeshuaBought

Ive reported you for constant stalking and trolling 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

Ive reported you for constant stalking and trolling 

You are on my debate, and you need to leave. I have done nothing wrong, and you don't have the right, to lie, or troll. What the actual **** is wrong with you?

Dee

@YeshuaBought

You’re constantly stalking and harassing me I’ve reported you yet again that’s 6 times now 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I think you need to calm down.

At this point we are just talking past each other, and for the record, no it is neither rational nor irrational to detest Hitler.

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

You’re constantly stalking and harassing me I’ve reported you yet again that’s 6 times now 

you don't have the right to lie about me, on my debate. i have done nothing wrong.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****  I think you need to calm down.

Right , you’re mirroring as in attempting to blame me on your emotional state ......Own it buddy  

*****At this point we are just talking past each other,

Your failure to comprehend simple concepts is something I think you need to work on 


*****and for the record, no it is neither rational nor irrational to detest Hitler.

Oooookay , it’s not rational to dislike Hitler for implementing the  Holocaust .....thanks for the heads up 

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I do not think that the existence of problems with acknowledging something means that it itself is wrong/irrational. You mentioned that the assumption that emotions are rational can lead to destructive behaviors in people, such as someone taking advantage of others, instead of helping them - this is true (albeit the assumption that emotions are irrational does not exclude the possibility of such behaviors either), but does this really speak against emotions being rational? For that matter, why is helping others better than taking advantage of them? It really depends on the individual moral system, which is highly subjective. You could easily justify taking advantage of others with a different moral system, and many people do so routinely.

I look at this from a more mathematical perspective. In mathematics, we have a set of axioms and build everything else from them. All the constructs in mathematics are logical/rational, however the entire body of mathematics rests on the assumption that those primary axioms are true - and then do not have to be. Logic in mathematics is conditional, and we can only say "If X is true, then Y is true". We cannot just say "X is true" with no strings attached, but we can say "We will assume that X is true and see where it leads".

Rationality, in my view, also has to be grounded in some axioms - and those axioms do not have to describe reality very well. You could say that someone's axioms themselves are irrational, but, again, you need deeper axioms to be able to say that... It is an infinite rabbit hole.
Rationality, just as logic, is only possible when it is conditional. And the axiom stating that all of my emotions accurately describe the inherent quality of the objects they are directed towards has the right to exist, and the conclusions derived from it could be rational within this paradigm. Now, you could argue that such an axiom will lead to a great deal of misery for the person accepting it, and I would agree with you - nonetheless, we cannot really say that it is irrational. Maybe impractical, which is a term having a similar meaning, but a different connotation. But not irrational.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee My observation of your emotions is based on your interactions with @YeshuaBought

Also, responsibility for the holocaust is heavily debated, with some arguing that the ideas were never really Hitlers and he was hands off in the affairs, basically letting it happen, While others argue that he was heavily involved.

There are actual groups that actually believe that what Hitler did was right, and they have a strong emotional feeling they are.

Who are you to say they are less rational than you?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

@Dee My observation of your emotions is based on your interactions with @YeshuaBought


Oh right , I've reported her 8 times now for stalking but naturally you take her side , she ls a notorious troll with multiple accounts on here and Create Debate ......I called her out on her racism
she didn't like it and told me she was a rape victim as if that had anything to do with the topic ....,, The pair of you are well suited and it's not supprising you leap to her defence you're a spineless individual 



*****Also, responsibility for the holocaust is heavily debated, with some arguing that the ideas were never really Hitlers and he was hands off in the affairs,

Yes of course Hitler loved Jews how foolish of me 

*****basically letting it happen, While others argue that he was heavily involved.

Right 

*****There are actual groups that actually believe that what Hitler did was right, and they have a strong emotional feeling they are.

Really , what are these emotional pro Hitler groups called , and their decision was emotional? 

******Who are you to say they are less rational than you?

But you just admitted their decision was emotional so according to you it cannot be rational .....You keep beating your own arguments .....Well done ....


I dont believe gassing Jews is rational but I guess people like you will always find what you call rational justification......

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

@Dee My observation of your emotions is based on your interactions with @YeshuaBought


Oh right , I've reported her 8 times now for stalking but naturally you take her side , she ls a notorious troll with multiple accounts on here and Create Debate ......I called her out on her racism
she didn't like it and told me she was a rape victim as if that had anything to do with the topic ....,, The pair of you are well suited and it's not supprising you leap to her defence you're a spineless individual 



*****Also, responsibility for the holocaust is heavily debated, with some arguing that the ideas were never really Hitlers and he was hands off in the affairs,

Yes of course Hitler loved Jews how foolish of me 

*****basically letting it happen, While others argue that he was heavily involved.

Right 

*****There are actual groups that actually believe that what Hitler did was right, and they have a strong emotional feeling they are.

Really , what are these emotional pro Hitler groups called , and their decision was emotional? 

******Who are you to say they are less rational than you?

But you just admitted their decision was emotional so according to you it cannot be rational .....You keep beating your own arguments .....Well done ....


I dont believe gassing Jews is rational but I guess people like you will always find what you call rational justification......

i have done nothing wrong. if you are on my debate, i have the right to say something to you. If you post one more time to me, or on my debates, i will report you again. you don't have the right to lie or troll.

ZeusAres42

@Happy_Killbot

You and I probably agree on a lot of stuff here. However, there is still some stuff bothering me here. Although granted I am not entirely sure if I am sure of your position here. Firstly though, I think it needs mentioning that there is a difference between reason and rationality. Rationality is acting in accordance with one's own beliefs, objectives, goals, etc regardless of their reasoning. Reason, on the other hand, denotes the capacity to make sense of things, analyze stuff, justify behavior, etc.

Happy_Killbot said:

@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.

Firstly, by stating that emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive what exactly do you mean by that? For example, do you mean that emotion and rationality cannot occur at the same time? As for the bit highlighted in bold did you mean to write that and if so what you do you mean that just by doing something rationally does not mean you're doing something rationally?

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.

I would say what you're talking about here is reason; not rationality as I've already stated that there is a difference between the two. Thus leads us to ponder the question is there any reason for us wanting to commit any action? Of course, there is, even if that reason is based on pure emotion alone; it's still a reason for that action.

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.

Firstly, when you are thinking about something in retrospect you are using a reasoning process. Now, whatever one thinks about another's reasoning process is irrelevant to the fact that a reasoning process is going on. 

Of course, during the time you are faced with a perceived threat you don't go through an analytical process like Sherlock Holmes did in one of those movies. However, about evolution and survival traits if the goal is to survive and have their reasons for wanting to survive then the action of avoiding a perceived threat is a rational act as it's in accordance with those survival goals and the person's own reasons. It doesn't matter if it' instinctive. All this means is that instinct precedes those survival goals, and those survival goals, in turn, precede rational acts with are in accordance with those survival goals.

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.

I would say that rationalizations are synonymous with making reasons. They may not necessarily be very good reasons or good logic but they're still reasons nonetheless. There is still a cognitive process going on here.

This is why politics is such a swamp as you call it, rational thinking is practically non-existent and emotions run wild.

This, the only logical answer I can give is I don't know as I do not know all of politics, politicians, all of their rational thinking process and what emotions they're all experiencing, and so forth.

The assumption that emotions are somehow rational just dumps a ton of gas on that dumpster fire.

I say emotions by themselves are neither rational or irrational; they are arational. However, emotions can influence rationality, reason or to be more technical they can influence cognition.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Triggered Much?

First off, I wouldn't say what I did was a leap to her defense, but it is apparent the two of you are not having much of a civil discussion. I do not have any knowledge on her being a rape victim or racist or a troll. Irrelevant, we aren't talking about her, we are talking about Trump haters.

My younger brother has a history degree, and this is how I know about the Hitler/Holocaust debate. Maybe study history a little more, lest you repeat it?

"But you just admitted their decision was emotional so according to you it cannot be rational .....You keep beating your own arguments .....Well done ....
I dont believe gassing Jews is rational but I guess people like you will always find what you call rational justification......"

I'm saying this to point out the absurdity in the assumption that emotion and reason correlate somehow. Technically, this is a conclusion from the argument you are making if you do not accept that reason and emotion are mutually exclusive.

If you don't think gassing Jews is rational just because that is how actual racists feel, then we are in agreement and you will have to coincide that hating Trump is not rational.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Seeing emotions and values as being subjective is another way of looking at this that makes it fairly obvious that this would be the case, because even if someone was devoid of emotions but not of values they would still function fine, but what those values are can be changed to anything else without really making much fundamental difference, but huge differences in outcomes and behavior.

I think if wanted to frame this argument as something more agreeable I would focus primarily on the differences between something being practical and something being rational. Emotions certainly have pragmatic value, and making decisions from emotions can tend to have very useful consequences, but not always the ones fully intended or strictly rational. Then there is the arguments against pragmatism, which basically say that being useful doesn't always mean right or logically true.

For example, it would be very useful or pragmatic to make a copy of a painting and pass it off as an original in order to profit. It would still stand however that it was a fake and therefore has no value, but only if people know it is a fake. You can never get out of the rationality trap. At the end of the day, things can only be rational if we say they are, which basically means anything goes as long as you can get people to agree.

Happy_Killbot

ZeusAres42 said:

@Happy_Killbot

Happy_Killbot said:

@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.

Firstly, by stating that emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive what exactly do you mean by that? For example, do you mean that emotion and rationality cannot occur at the same time? As for the bit highlighted in bold did you mean to write that and if so what you do you mean that just by doing something rationally does not mean you're doing something rationally? 

What I mean when I say emotion and reason are mutually exclusive is that the two are completely independent and can have nothing to do with each other, because if you have a string of thoughts that starts from an emotion I.e. "I hate trump" then any logical thought following isn't really rational, it's ration's cousin who has herpes: rationalization. As for that highlighted part, what I meant to write was "Just because you are doing something rational or thinking rationally does no automatically mean that what you are doing is for rational reasons."

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.

I would say what you're talking about here is reason; not rationality as I've already stated that there is a difference between the two. Thus leads us to ponder the question is there any reason for us wanting to commit any action? Of course, there is, even if that reason is based on pure emotion alone; it's still a reason for that action.

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.

Firstly, when you are thinking about something in retrospect you are using a reasoning process. Now, whatever one thinks about another's reasoning process is irrelevant to the fact that a reasoning process is going on. 

Of course, during the time you are faced with a perceived threat you don't go through an analytical process like Sherlock Holmes did in one of those movies. However, about evolution and survival traits if the goal is to survive and have their reasons for wanting to survive then the action of avoiding a perceived threat is a rational act as it's in accordance with those survival goals and the person's own reasons. It doesn't matter if it' instinctive. All this means is that instinct precedes those survival goals, and those survival goals, in turn, precede rational acts with are in accordance with those survival goals. 

Putting these two together for brevity. When we think about why we did something in retrospect, I would say that 999/1000 times it is rationalization, and the fact that our decisions are largely unconscious suggests this is true, and everything including our reasoning ability is deterministic. When we rationalize, we are basically just making up any answer we want, it doesn't have to be valid or even make sense. Emotions play a pragmatic function, specifically enabling our survival. But the assumption that this survival is based on is not some universal truth, but a subjective one. We all agree that we should do that because we are evolved to be that way, evolution is unforgiving of those that do not survive. I'm not saying emotions serve no purpose, but I am saying that that purpose is devoid of any reasons in and of itself, and thus it is not rational.

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.

I would say that rationalizations are synonymous with making reasons. They may not necessarily be very good reasons or good logic but they're still reasons nonetheless. There is still a cognitive process going on here.

This is why politics is such a swamp as you call it, rational thinking is practically non-existent and emotions run wild.

This, the only logical answer I can give is I don't know as I do not know all of politics, politicians, all of their rational thinking process and what emotions they're all experiencing, and so forth.

The assumption that emotions are somehow rational just dumps a ton of gas on that dumpster fire.

I say emotions by themselves are neither rational or irrational; they are arational. However, emotions can influence rationality, reason or to be more technical they can influence cognition.

Rationalizations have been referred to as the biggest hurtle for moral progress. Rationalization is when you justify your actions to yourself, they are the little lies we all tell ourselves to excuse us from our own actions. For example: "The homework was too hard, that's why I didn't do it" or "That person I killed was bad, they deserved to die" In the case of Trump hate: "I hate Trump, because he is bad for the country" Not rational thinking.

The modern political atmosphere is quite the dumpster fire in comparison to other points in US history, and I think part of the problem is people assume that there emotion based conclusions are rational, and that when people need to realize this in order for real progress to be made. As Tim Urban puts it in his blog post entitled "political Disney world"

" Issues played up in the media are like plotlines in the Disney movie narrative, which you’ll hear constant emotional discussion about, while other issues are like plotlines that didn’t make it into the movie’s final cut—and in PDW, you won’t hear people talking about them at all."
https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/12/political-disney-world.html

I suppose I would agree that emotions are arational, although I see this as a semantic difference as "arational" would be neither rational nor irrational, but I would still use the word irrational because I think of irrationality as zero and not a negative.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

But, again, whether something is useful or not depends on your system of values. If you deeply believe, for example, that it is wrong to lie, then you will not think of selling a fake painting for a fortune by claiming it is the original as pragmatic. Pragmatism does not just come down to the person trying to achieve the maximal material prosperity; emotional well-being is extremely important as well, maybe even more so.

I think me and @ZeusAres42 have a similar view here: that emotions themselves are neither rational nor irrational, but their interpretation and the response to them can be either.

I agree that anything can be rational or irrational in principle; however, it is useful to have some base system of values that one accepts as rational and that has been tested by time, in order to navigate life. With that system in place, one can distinguish rational feelings, thoughts and actions from irrational ones. That system itself is not rationally justified, but, again, the chain of rationality has to start somewhere anyway, so why not start it there?

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Frankly, I don't think values are rational either. Even if you have a perfectly logical set of actions that followed from a given set of values, maximized by your given intelligence, it would still be without a true foundation in reason, and thus is not really rational.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't still do those things based on those values, it just means that what conclusions you reach are only going to follow from those assumptions, and without a basis you can make them whatever you want.

For human level intelligence, this isn't a problem because everyone has more or less the same values and comparable intelligence, but when there is a huge disparity between either of these things (values or intelligence) then it means that power and capability becomes the main determining factor in any decision. When this comes from politics, where they do have power this problem becomes apparent as many people will be forced into the consequences from the governing power in question.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

You’re basically saying those working in the field are all wrong and you of course are right you’ve done zero research on the topic and you did say to my piece citing a famous case study that you were still right all cause you say so , do facts disturb you so much you cannot acknowledge those in the field may be right and you wrong? 

Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases, a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient—and indeed better—than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications. A study conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara indicates that in situations in which we are moderately angry our ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant claims in disputed issues is sharpened. Another study that I coauthored reveals that our inclination to become angered grows in situations in which we can benefit from anger. In other words, there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic.


I did say reason and emotion work in tandem read on .......

Psychology today 

Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases, a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient—and indeed better—than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications. A study conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara indicates that in situations in which we are moderately angry our ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant claims in disputed issues is sharpened. Another study that I coauthored reveals that our inclination to become angered grows in situations in which we can benefit from anger. In other words, there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

** **I say emotions by themselves are neither rational or irrational; they are arational. However, emotions can influence rationality, reason or to be more technical they can influence cognition. 

That’s a good piece you posted 

As I keep saying it’s impossible to be rational without being emotional 

I don’t know if you read my other piece but those working in the field are the ones I think who should know best 

      It is impossible to be rational without being emotional 

           A rather famous case study proves this 

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.

Psychology today 

Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases, a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient—and indeed better—than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications. A study conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara indicates that in situations in which we are moderately angry our ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant claims in disputed issues is sharpened. Another study that I coauthored reveals that our inclination to become angered grows in situations in which we can benefit from anger. In other words, there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****Triggered Much?

So you’re here to trigger me ? Fine you go for that so 

I started out this debate asking you a question I was courteous and respectful and you suddenly launch into a personal attack because I’m defending my position do you behave the same way if playing chess? 

B T W I only resort to full out attack if attacked first , I give back exactly what I get , you disagree with accepted science and philosophy on the matter that’s fine , I’m used to debating science deniers so do carry on 

****First off, I wouldn't say what I did was a leap to her defense, 

Right ,sitting on the fence now 

****but it is apparent the two of you are not having much of a civil discussion. 

Like you she went off on one all because I asked her to justify a racist remark but of course that makes her the victim she does it everytime , why not read her replies to those who disagree with her?

****I do not have any knowledge on her being a rape victim or racist or a troll. Irrelevant, we aren't talking about her, we are talking about Trump haters.

Why bring it up initially then?

****My younger brother has a history degree, and this is how I know about the Hitler/Holocaust debate. 

So your brother was actually told what you quoted below in History lectures .....Wow!

......There are actual groups that actually believe that what Hitler did was right, and they have a strong emotional feeling they are.......

That’s what you said wasn’t it?

****Maybe study history a little more, lest you repeat it?

Maybe tell your brother to get the money back he paid for his degree? 

Here’s a fact for the pair of you’s ...... The primary responsibility for the Holocaust rests on Hitler and the Nazi Party leadership, but operations to persecute Jews, Gypsies, and others were also perpetrated by the Schutzstaffel(SS), the German military, ordinary German citizens as well as by collaborationist members of various European governments, including their soldiers and civilians alike. A host of factors contributed to the environment under which atrocities were committed across the continent, ranging from general racism (including antisemitism), religious hatred, blind obedience, political opportunism, coercion, profiteering, and xenophobia.

****I'm saying this to point out the absurdity in the assumption that emotion and reason correlate somehow. Technically, this is a conclusion from the argument you are making if you do not accept that reason and emotion are mutually exclusive.

Yes I know you deny neurosciences findings , philosophy and psychology on the matter 

****If you don't think gassing Jews is rational just because that is how actual racists feel, 

Right , so now I’m a racist because I think gassing Jews is irrational ????.

****then we are in agreement and you will have to coincide that hating Trump is not rational.

I honestly think you’re stoned you’re making no sense at all

 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***it would still be without a true foundation in reason, and thus is not really rational.

What is a “true foundation” in reason? You keep appealing to this source yet cannot define it .......

There are many differing opinions regards foundationalism yet you keep asserting your position which you won’t define is correct , why’s that?

Descartes, the most famed foundationalist, discovered a foundation in the fact 

of his own existence and in the "clear and distinct" ideas of reason,[1][2] whereas Locke found a foundation in experience. Differing foundations may reflect differing epistemological emphases—empiricists emphasizing experience, rationalists emphasizing reason—but may blend both.[1]

Wiki 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee

Assumption: "I hate X and hating X is rational"

"Hating X is justified, because X is bad for the country"

"X is bad for the country because of Y ideas, and Z actions"

Therefore: "Keeping X out of politics is important"

And: "not giving any people that associate with X or support Y ideas"

And: "Reprimanding those that take Z action is justified"

Do you agree or disagree with this Logic?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

What you’re babbling about is beyond me , you cobble together another piece of nonsense simply because of hurt pride , you disagree with neuroscience, philosophy and psychology and  that’s your prerogative , why do you even bother debating if you let your hurt feelings leave you in a position where you deny facts?

You actually have the temerity to hold forth on reason .....irony 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ;

Assumption: "I hate X and hating X is rational"

"Hating X is justified, because X is bad for the country"

"X is bad for the country because of Y ideas, and Z actions"

Therefore: "Keeping X out of politics is important"

And: "not giving any people that associate with X or support Y ideas"

And: "Reprimanding those that take Z action is justified"

Do you agree or disagree with this Logic?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

What you’re babbling about is beyond me , you cobble together another piece of nonsense simply because of hurt pride , you disagree with neuroscience, philosophy and psychology and  that’s your prerogative , why do you even bother debating if you let your hurt feelings leave you in a position where you deny facts?

You actually have the temerity to hold forth on reason .....irony  

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ;

Assumption: "I hate X and hating X is rational"

"Hating X is justified, because X is bad for the country"

"X is bad for the country because of Y ideas, and Z actions"

Therefore: "Keeping X out of politics is important"

And: "not giving any people that associate with X or support Y ideas"

And: "Reprimanding those that take Z action is justified"

Do you agree or disagree with this Logic?

If you do not answer, then I will assume you do.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

You’re still posting irrelevant nonsense because you’re Butt Hurt that science , philosophy and psychology disagrees with your pseudoscienctific babble ....... 


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."


Here it is folks the science denier in his own words .....Science is wrong “ cause he says so , so there “ 

I don't believe this, and I'm not wrong, 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee First off, my point does not disagree with the science you provided, in fact it needs it to be true in order for it to make any sense at all.

Second off, as I have stated multiple times, but you seem oblivious to and still want to straw man me, I do not think emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but rather that emotions themselves are not based on rationals thought. That's not controversial, it's just basic truth.

Assumption: "I hate X and hating X is rational"

"Hating X is justified, because X is bad for the country"

"X is bad for the country because of Y ideas, and Z actions"

Therefore: "Keeping X out of politics is important"

And: "not giving any people that associate with X or support Y ideas"

And: "Reprimanding those that take Z action is justified"

Do you agree or disagree with this Logic?

Because you have failed to accept my question, most likely on the grounds that you know where it will lead, I will assume you agree on account of you have indicated in the past that this is what you think, and this stands in opposition to the point I am trying to make, because I strongly disagree with that above logic.

And third, if you think it is rational that X = Trump, Y = authoritarianism, and Z = mismanagement of the Oval office / abuse of power,

Then you will have to accept that X =Jews, Y = Judaism, and Z = failure to help war effort in WWI.

I don't think either of these is reasonable, and the reason is because the base assumption "I hate X and hating X is rational" is wrong, and probably the reason that nobody seems to be able to get along anymore. The logic built on that assumption is not rational thought, but reactive rationalization to justify that primal emotion, or as the science puts it:

"Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases, a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient—and indeed better—than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications."

Rational thought has to go the other way. Instead of starting from an emotion and building on it in a reactive way, rational thinking is proactive. "I know that A and B are true, therefore C might be true, and we can test it to find out" That is rational thought.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****First off, my point does not disagree with the science you provided, in fact it needs it to be true in order for it to make any sense at all.

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 

There you go 

****Second off, as I have stated multiple times, but you seem oblivious to and still want to straw man me, I do not think emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, 

You just said you don’t believe this 

****but rather that emotions themselves are not based on rationals thought. 

There can be no rational thought without emotion that’s 42 times now I’ve stated this 

***** What I mean when I say emotion and reason are mutually exclusive is that the two are completely independent and can have nothing to do with each other, 

That again is nonsense and you’ve contradicted yourself yet again 

****That's not controversial, it's just basic truth.

Assumption: "I hate X and hating X is rational"

"Hating X is justified, because X is bad for the country"

"X is bad for the country because of Y ideas, and Z actions"

Therefore: "Keeping X out of politics is important"

And: "not giving any people that associate with X or support Y ideas"

And: "Reprimanding those that take Z action is justified"

Do you agree or disagree with this Logic?

Because you have failed to accept my question, most likely on the grounds that you know where it will lead, 

Incorrect , it’s beause  as usual you rephrase an argument in an attempt to avoid justifying why you cannot ( still) answer why it’s irrational for me to say I dislike Hitler you refuse to address this but instead introduce a straw man and a red Herring  , you and your brother a “ History “ teacher think it irrational to dislike Hitler and think I’m a racist for saying the gassing of Jews was wrong .....remember? 

****I will assume you agree on account of you have indicated in the past that this is what you think, and this stands in opposition to the point I am trying to make, because I strongly disagree with that above logic.

I will assume you have no defence of your innocence of Hitler piece this this attempt at trying to B S your way out?

***And third, if you think it is rational that X = Trump, Y = authoritarianism, and Z = mismanagement of the Oval office / abuse of power,

Then you will have to accept that X =Jews, Y = Judaism, and Z = failure to help war effort in WWI.

Another totally ridiculous argument I haven’t made 

**//I don't think either of these is reasonable, and the reason is because the base assumption "I hate X and hating X is rational" is wrong, and probably the reason that nobody seems to be able to get along anymore. The logic built on that assumption is not rational thought, but reactive rationalization to justify that primal emotion, or as the science puts it:

Right so Jews that disliked Hitler were irrational that’s what you’re saying right?

"***/Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases, a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficient—and indeed better—than a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications."

Something you denied but now accept but no doubt will deny again when suits 

****/Rational thought has to go the other way. Instead of starting from an emotion and building on it in a reactive way, rational thinking is proactive. "I know that A and B are true, therefore C might be true, and we can test it to find out" That is rational thought.

There can be no rational thought without emotion you clot 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee If you think there can be no rational thought without emotion, then that means that you think Hitler and his Nazi associates are being rational when they concluded that Jews ought to be exterminated. This is a necessary conclusion from your thinking. Just because you don't agree with it (probably because you are not anti-Semitic) doesn't mean that no one can be an anti-Semite.

Also, there can be rational thought without emotion, as we can see in all the robots and AI's that lack emotions, which is the vast majority of them. Even in the case of deep neural networks that essentially learn by intuition, there is no emotion present, unless you count the reward function, which may or may not also be a neural network, but I think that is a little dubious.

There can indeed be rational thought without emotion, and typically all proactive thought is. This is where you start from a point of knowing basic facts, and I don't mean emotional facts I mean epistemic scientific ones, and reach a new conclusion from that thought. You don't even need to have a human mind for this to occur, but we have yet to meet any entities truly capable of doing this.

I still maintain, that what you want to call "Rational though" which follows from emotion, is not rational but rather is rationalization to justify those emotions.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****If you think there can be no rational thought without emotion, then that means that you think Hitler and his Nazi associates are being rational when they concluded that Jews ought to be exterminated. This is a necessary conclusion from your thinking. Just because you don't agree with it (probably because you are not anti-Semitic) doesn't mean that no one can be an anti-Semite.

It’s not what I think it’s what neuroscience has proven , but then again you said it was wrong “ cause you say so” 

***Also, there can be rational thought without emotion, as we can see in all the robots and AI's that lack emotions, which is the vast majority of them. 

Right , so you want change tack now and change the debate to AI’s why’s that?

****Even in the case of deep neural networks that essentially learn by intuition, there is no emotion present, unless you count the reward function, which may or may not also be a neural network, but I think that is a little dubious.

There still can be no rational thought without emotion , you cannot prove otherwise and you deny science so anything new? 

**** There can indeed be rational thought without emotion, 

There cannot regards humans you read my piece from neuroscience regards patient  Eliott and said “ it’s wrong cause I say so “ if you prove such you will get a Nobel prize , I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving such 

***/and typically all proactive thought is. This is where you start from a point of knowing basic facts, and I don't mean emotional facts I mean epistemic scientific ones, and reach a new conclusion from that thought. You don't even need to have a human mind for this to occur, but we have yet to meet any entities truly capable of doing this.

Yawn .......

** ** I still maintain, that what you want to call "Rational though" which follows from emotion, is not rational but rather is rationalization to justify those emotions.

Nonsense , DE. ERICH FROMM, in a recent report to the Journal of the American Home Economics Association, discussed the two kinds of hatred which he claims exist. One is what he calls the “counterpoint of life“. It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.”

Don’t worry your mum agrees with you .......

Plaffelvohfen

There are many ways to interpret "rationality", according to Max Weber there are 4 models:  Instrumental rationality, belief/value based rationality, affectual/emotion based rationality and traditional/conventional, and these are not mutually exclusive and often overlay... 

There is also the idea of bounded rationality, which is the idea that rationality is limited when individuals make decisions. Limited by the tractability of the decision problem, the cognitive limitations of the mind, and the time available to make the decision... 

So we begin with a term "rationality" that is ill-defined... Not a good start imo...

Then there is the Emotions, which are also ill-defined... In themselves, there's no way that emotions can be considered "rational", there is no reasoning with emotions, there is only feeling... Loving or hating the taste of something cannot be "rational", as no reasoning whatsoever is involved, only feelings... 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I never said the science was wrong, I said your interpretation of my statements was wrong.

Most AI's don't have emotion, and can carry out rational processes, which disproves the notion that rational thought must always be accompanied by emotion. Why do you deny science?

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

,****in themselves, there's no way that emotions can be considered "rational", there is no reasoning with emotions, there is only feeling...

I’ve stated repeatedly reason and emotions work in tandem one cannot be rational if one is not emotional 

****Loving or hating the taste of something cannot be "rational", as no reasoning whatsoever is involved, only feelings... 

Hating the taste of excrement to me is entirely rational 

DE. ERICH FROMM, in a recent report to the Journal of the American Home Economics Association, discussed the two kinds of hatred which he claims exist. One is what he calls the “counterpoint of life“. It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.”

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ;

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

****  I never said the science was wrong, I said your interpretation of my statements was wrong.

Maybe you should revise your statements then seeing as you agree that a human cannot be rational without emotions 

****Most AI's don't have emotion, and can carry out rational processes,

Yes funny that AI’s are programmed to carry out processes 

****which disproves the notion that rational thought must always be accompanied by emotion. 

Okay so now you can prove that AI’s actually think? How does it disprove such in humans?

The amount of fallacious arguments you make is astounding 

****Why do you deny science?

I don’t I’m waiting for you to prove computers have thoughts and think , in your own time of course ........