The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Is the following definition appropiate to rationality?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
truebene
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 6th, 2018, 4:01 pm

Is the following definition appropiate to rationality?

Post by truebene » November 6th, 2018, 4:06 pm

So I've noticed that rationality , so far, hasn't been defined in a ,,concrete'' and understandable way. So I've thought what if we define it by the following:

THE ABBILITY OF A SPECIE TO MODIFY THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE WITHOUT THE SAKE OF IT'S OWN SURVIVAL.

For instance the bees or the lions have only needs (that change the entropy ot the universe) that will grant their survival (eating, drinking, sleeping), and thus they don't possess the previous said abbility. Where humans can play music or making a lots of copies of some object (phones,clothes), playing videogames, doing physics, science, and other consciousness activities. Basically modifying the entropy of the universe not with the purpose of its survival. Making same copies of clothes or phones, playing videogames doesn't raise the chances of survival, but changes the entropy.

How do you think, is this a good definition, is it not? Why so?

User avatar
chrisphd
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: December 12th, 2018, 4:47 am

Re: Is the following definition appropiate to rationality?

Post by chrisphd » December 12th, 2018, 5:11 am

Suppose you are correct that humans can modify the entropy of the universe for reasons other than survival, and suppose that animals cannot. To me this isn't sufficient to conclude that this behaviour is at all "rational". If I'm interpreting you correctly, it seems you are indicating that playing video games is rational, which I'm sure is highly debatable for example. Thus I'd be very hesitant to adopt a definition of reality that classifies video games as rational by definition.

In my opinion, rationality is thinking and behaving in a self consistent manner, particularly in relation to one's goals. For example, suppose someone's primary goal in life is to make as much money as possible, it may be irrational for them to then unnecessarily spend money on things they don't need.

Steve3007
Posts: 5828
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is the following definition appropiate to rationality?

Post by Steve3007 » December 13th, 2018, 7:21 am

My main problem with the definition of "rationality" offered in the OP of this topic is that it misuses the concept of entropy. Entropy is a physical quantity, with physical units (Joules per Kelvin in SI units). It doesn't really make sense to define rationality as the ability to modify the entropy of the universe for purposes other than physical survival. The entropy of a closed physical system cannot decrease. The rate at which entropy increases in a system is described by physical laws. That is true regardless of the nature of any living creatures that may or may not exist inside or outside that physical system.

I think it makes more sense to define rationality, in its broadest sense, as the ability to see patterns and to create abstractions from those patterns. By "abstractions" I mean concepts, such as mathematics (but not just mathematics), that can model the patterns in the physical world but are not part of that world.

I suspect that it is this ability to abstract that leads to the ability to construct rational arguments.

Jklint
Posts: 1392
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Is the following definition appropiate to rationality?

Post by Jklint » December 14th, 2018, 5:49 pm

Rationality is the ability to tie nose hairs to ass hairs thereby creating a logical sequence.

Post Reply