Posted: Sep 12, 2018 3:31 pm
by Thommo
wisedupearly wrote:"rational. ... Rational comes from the Latin word rationalis, meaning reasonable or logical. If you're rational, you do things based on logic, as opposed to impulse or whimsy. The original meaning in English was of something endowed with the ability to reason."
think rationally = mental process based on logic, as opposed to impulse or whimsy

Community: "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common."
To strengthen a community = to increase the stability and happiness of a group of people by decreasing the level of negative actions/attitudes.

wisedupearly wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Those are all claims, which could be investigated empirically*, yes. What of it?


I see it as being rational (reasonable?) to say that the states described are highly desirable to both the individual and thus the community. As such, we should confirm what is possible and the degree of improvement achieved (if any).


Ok, thanks for those.

Let's see where this gets us, by means of a simple example, summed up in a few questions.

(i) How much satisfaction do I take from performing daily chores/tasks at present?
(ii) How could I learn how to find more satisfaction in performing daily chores/tasks? And if this is not by an established method, why should I think this method will work?
(iii) How would I know if I had learned to take more satisfaction from performing daily chores/tasks?
(iv) The same questions as (i) - (iii) for the separate claim of acting rationally.
(v) How do I find out how stable and happy my community is? How do I find out what the rate of negative actions/attitudes is?
(vi) What are the additional, unforseen and unintended consequences of imposing this programme of societal change?
(vii) If any or all of this works, why should I believe it has anything to do with Socrates?

These are the sorts of questions that occur to me. There is no shortage of people claiming to have diagnosed societies' problems, and there is no shortage of people claiming to have found the solutions. On a daily basis I am assailed by information about far more concrete and well defined problems (like the Northern Ireland border) and I find that the vast majority of claims about simple solutions are implausible, or actively debunked. Obviously it's much easier to debunk a more specific solution that relates to a more specific claim (like reunifying Ireland, as I've had suggested to me quite recently).

Another example: Forced marriages are something I would definitely put in your category negative attitude/action. There are people who would solve this problem by banning all Muslims from entering Britain. There are people who would solve this problem by banning all people from certain countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia and a few others) from entering Britain. There are people who would forcibly eject Muslims from the country. All of those solutions, could, theoretically work. They might, theoretically, solve the problem of forced marriages. However, they are all absolutely unthinkable because of the additional consequences, they are monstrously racist, they would cause trauma to families, to law abiding people, it would dispossess them of their homes, their rights, their property, their nationality, it would tear society apart, it would cause violence as people defended them from tyranny, it would be unspeakably and unthinkably worse in intruding into the space of negative attitudes/actions. It might be unlikely that your ideas would be in this category, and it certainly doesn't seem like they would to the same extremity, it's an illustration of why my questions are, to me, more than mere confected difficulties, but are real questions that I would need satisfactory non-cursory answers to if I were to take your suggestions seriously.

There are an awful lot of ways that a conjecture can fail to be borne out in reality. So whilst I acknowledge that you may believe your conjecture, what I require is evidence, otherwise I (and I speak for no other) will not be persuaded.