Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4028 talk.philosophy.misc:4585 sci.psychology:3763
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!voder!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Summary: Rationality is an innate characteristic of humans.
Keywords: human nature rationality goals order Original Sin
Message-ID: <821@metapsy.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 90 04:38:24 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Nov8.205905.1627@oracle.com> <16791@netcom.UUCP> <59261@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> <1399@gtx.com>
Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA
Lines: 45

In article <1399@gtx.com>, al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski) writes:
>In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz
(A.S. Chamove) writes:
>>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational
>>behaviour is quite rare.

>Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with
>respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's
>sometimes hard to tell which is which.

Rationality includes (amongst other things) an alignment amongst
different elements of experience, include an alignment between
intentions and other intentions.  From this perspective, I would
agree with Chamove and maybe carry it even a bit farther.  My view is
that all people are inherently rational, if you look from the
person-centered viewpoint (i.e., from the viewpoint off the person
whose rationality you are considering).  No one thinks or does
anything that he believes to be irrational -- at the exact moment he
thinks or does it.  One only spots irrationality in one's own
behavior and thoughts in *retrospect* (though that retrospect may be
only a second or fraction of a second later).  And one is lookinng at
prior irrationality from a later viewpoint that one regards as
rational.  In my view, rationality is built into human nature;  we are
always being as rational as we can.  We call others "irrational" when
we refuse to understand the viewpoint from which we could otherwise
see the rationale of their thoughts and actions.

>I don't see that you can classify the goals themselves as "rational" or
>"irrational", though you might say "I agree with that goal" or "I
>disagree with that one".

That, in fact, is the way in which "irrational" and "rational" tend
to be used.  But if some goals were universal and paramount in human
nature, then goals that conflicted with those universal goals might
justly be considered irrational, because there would inevitably be a
conflict between them and the higher universal goals.  I happen to
think that goals like the goal to destroy others -- or even the goal
to be irrational -- might be considered irrational because I believe
that there is a universal and paramount tendency toward love and
communion with others and toward having an orderly world.  (Sort of
the opposite of Original Sin -- Original Virtue?)
-- 
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  [apple or practic or pyramid]!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
431 Burgess Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com