So, what would a rational story be about? Health and Happiness sound like good bets. It should incorporate elements described by religious mysticism, stuff like Love, Joy, Strength, Peace, Trust, etc. It should position itself to the current effort to find common ground… like the Charter for Compassion. It should be about a long journey of discovering the power of love.
And what exactly would make that story “rational”? Pray to St.Bayes to discover the power of love? X-0
I find I can always count on you to make pointlessly snarky comments.
I would prefer to be more specific, and say ‘understanding, acceptance, confidence, control, and love’ (with clear definitions for each, probably similar to the ones in the GROW Blue Book). Not all of these things can be used to make clever, snappy remarks to wow outsiders, but they are all necessary for a satisfying life, and therefore must be addressed effectively by any sound philosophy of life. The parent comment was only vague, not wrong.
I don’t see how understanding, acceptance, and love follow from rationality.
They do not follow from it, they are necessary to it.
You need to relate well to yourself and others (love) in order to actually accomplish anything worthwhile without then turning around and sabotaging it.
If you discover something, you need to accept what is actually going on in order to come to understand it, and understand it in order to apply it.
Are you saying that rationalism is a “philosophy of life”, even leaving the soundness aside for a minute?
No. But a story that is trying to have broad appeal needs these things, whether it’s a story about rationality or about watching paint dry. A story conveys a sense of life.
The parent comment said: “You need a good story. That’s all. A good story.”
That’s not vague. That’s wrong.
That depends on what you think ‘good’ is supposed to imply there. If ‘convincing’ is the intended connotation, then yeah, wrong. If ‘consistent’ is the intended connotation, that is not obviously wrong, People need stories to help them get stuff done, even though stories are overall pretty terrible.
Science, for example, has methods, but overall science is a story about how to get accurate data and interpret it accurately in spite of our human failings. The way that the elements of that story were obtained does not make it any less of a story. History itself is a story, no matter how accurate you get, it remains a narrative rather than a fact. Reality exists, but all descriptions of it are stories; there are no facts found in stories; Facts are made of reality, not of words.
The truth I was referring in the previous comment is Scientific understanding.
Also, when I said story I did not meant a work of fiction but more like an work of vision.
Something like a reimagining of what life could be for the human race and the commitment to implement that vision as expressed by the people telling the story and living the story.
The truth I was referring in the previous comment is Scientific understanding.
I don’t understand what these words mean to you.
Something like a reimagining of what life could be for the human race and the commitment to implement that vision as expressed by the people telling the story and living the story.
I still don’t understand. What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology? Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology?
Think about a SF movie like Gravity, fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works, with the way we currently understand reality to work.
Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
In a certain regard this is true. Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person. However, once the pro-social stance has been selected, science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes. There are scientific studies regarding what is conducive to happiness and meaning. There is the whole field of eudaimonia studies that is clearly pointing towards specific values. It doesn’t tell you how to prioritise them but it sure points at what they should be.
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge).
fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works
So, a simpler word would be “realistic”.
Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person.
That’s an interesting choice of values.
science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes.
Links?
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge)
Then the success of capitalism must be a complete mystery to you.
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”,is a social behavior that “benefit[s] other people or society as a whole,” “such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering.”
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”
That is altruistic behavior. However I asked for the definition of a “pro-social outcome”.
Let’s say there was some change as the result of some action. How can I figure out whether that change is a “pro-social outcome” or is not a “pro-social outcome”?
If “greed” is defined as something like “behavior intended to increase one’s own wealth”, it seems that as long as a behavior has only one intent (which may not be the case), greed and “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another” are mutually exclusive by definition. However, if you care about whether it benefits others regardless of intent to do so, the answer may be quite different.
Notably, both are fiction.
And what exactly would make that story “rational”? Pray to St.Bayes to discover the power of love? X-0
I find I can always count on you to make pointlessly snarky comments.
I would prefer to be more specific, and say ‘understanding, acceptance, confidence, control, and love’ (with clear definitions for each, probably similar to the ones in the GROW Blue Book). Not all of these things can be used to make clever, snappy remarks to wow outsiders, but they are all necessary for a satisfying life, and therefore must be addressed effectively by any sound philosophy of life. The parent comment was only vague, not wrong.
One of the services I provide :-P
I don’t see how understanding, acceptance, and love follow from rationality. Confidence and control are more reasonable.
Are you saying that rationalism is a “philosophy of life”, even leaving the soundness aside for a minute?
The parent comment said: “You need a good story. That’s all. A good story.”
That’s not vague. That’s wrong.
They do not follow from it, they are necessary to it.
You need to relate well to yourself and others (love) in order to actually accomplish anything worthwhile without then turning around and sabotaging it.
If you discover something, you need to accept what is actually going on in order to come to understand it, and understand it in order to apply it.
No. But a story that is trying to have broad appeal needs these things, whether it’s a story about rationality or about watching paint dry. A story conveys a sense of life.
That depends on what you think ‘good’ is supposed to imply there. If ‘convincing’ is the intended connotation, then yeah, wrong. If ‘consistent’ is the intended connotation, that is not obviously wrong, People need stories to help them get stuff done, even though stories are overall pretty terrible.
Science, for example, has methods, but overall science is a story about how to get accurate data and interpret it accurately in spite of our human failings. The way that the elements of that story were obtained does not make it any less of a story. History itself is a story, no matter how accurate you get, it remains a narrative rather than a fact. Reality exists, but all descriptions of it are stories; there are no facts found in stories; Facts are made of reality, not of words.
I think a fidelity to the truth will make the story rational. I would love a story without slips into magikal thinking.
What do you call “the truth” in the context of a fictional story?
The truth I was referring in the previous comment is Scientific understanding.
Also, when I said story I did not meant a work of fiction but more like an work of vision.
Something like a reimagining of what life could be for the human race and the commitment to implement that vision as expressed by the people telling the story and living the story.
I don’t understand what these words mean to you.
I still don’t understand. What does “fidelity to the truth” mean in the context of ideology? Science doesn’t tell you what your values should be.
Think about a SF movie like Gravity, fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works, with the way we currently understand reality to work.
In a certain regard this is true. Science doesn’t tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person. However, once the pro-social stance has been selected, science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness… this have documented outcomes. There are scientific studies regarding what is conducive to happiness and meaning. There is the whole field of eudaimonia studies that is clearly pointing towards specific values. It doesn’t tell you how to prioritise them but it sure points at what they should be.
Greed, altho a value to some… is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge).
So, a simpler word would be “realistic”.
That’s an interesting choice of values.
Links?
Then the success of capitalism must be a complete mystery to you.
Start here:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/
Wouldn’t be more useful to just provide a valid counter example instead of mocking me?
The success of capitalism is a valid counterexample.
non sequitur.
Just because you view capitalism as a form of success it does not follow that greed has pro-social outcomes.
What exactly is “pro-social outcome”? Can you define it?
Prosocial behavior, or “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another”,is a social behavior that “benefit[s] other people or society as a whole,” “such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering.”
That is altruistic behavior. However I asked for the definition of a “pro-social outcome”.
Let’s say there was some change as the result of some action. How can I figure out whether that change is a “pro-social outcome” or is not a “pro-social outcome”?
If “greed” is defined as something like “behavior intended to increase one’s own wealth”, it seems that as long as a behavior has only one intent (which may not be the case), greed and “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another” are mutually exclusive by definition. However, if you care about whether it benefits others regardless of intent to do so, the answer may be quite different.
google says that the definition of greed is “intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.”
Replace “behavior intended to increase one’s wealth” with that definition, then. Everything else I said still stands.