Spearthrower wrote:

Gallstones wrote:I reason that choosing advantage is rational regardless.
Choosing other than advantage is either altruistic or foolish.

But you only get to do that because you have the capacity to reason.

Further, there are numerous scenarios where you'd employ your reason to delay or forgo advantage now for greater or different future advantage.

Is it rational to delay an immediate advantage for a future one that is not guaranteed?

Gallstones wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Gallstones wrote:I reason that choosing advantage is rational regardless.
Choosing other than advantage is either altruistic or foolish.

But you only get to do that because you have the capacity to reason.

Further, there are numerous scenarios where you'd employ your reason to delay or forgo advantage now for greater or different future advantage.

Is it rational to delay an immediate advantage for a future one that is not guaranteed?

It's only rationality that would let you recognise that decision.

Gallstones wrote:Is it rational to delay an immediate advantage for a future one that is not guaranteed?

Well this is the basis of all financial investment and it is surely possible to invest rationally.

Spearthrower wrote:

Panderos wrote:If I'm hungry and I eat and apple, is that rational (eating the apple), even if I don't employ reason? Would people say I acted irrationally?

If you didn't possess a brain capable of reasoning, it would be a-rational.

Ok.. lets assume I possess a brain capable of reasoning but didn't. I just went 'I'm hungry' and then ate the apple.

Gallstones wrote:
I reason that choosing advantage is rational regardless.
Choosing other than advantage is either altruistic or foolish.

any "choice" made is by nature self interest - it all depends on the time frame.
Only if you are naive or religious do you think altruism is other than self interest.

Long term gain versus short term gain is always in play.

BTW squirrels and birds do just fine caching food for the future,

Macdoc wrote:

Gallstones wrote:
I reason that choosing advantage is rational regardless.
Choosing other than advantage is either altruistic or foolish.

any "choice" made is by nature self interest...

Really?
How is that?

Macdoc wrote: - it all depends on the time frame.

The longer the time frame the longer the odds.
At some point it becomes stupid to gamble.

Macdoc wrote:Only if you are naive or religious do you think altruism is other than self interest.

"You" must = "one" in this example, cause you can't possibly mean me.

Macdoc wrote:Long term gain versus short term gain is always in play.

Agreed.
For now.

Macdoc wrote:BTW squirrels and birds do just fine caching food for the future,

And pigs and horses do fine not caching food for the future.
Pigs dig up the cache of squirrels and birds. Benefits the pigs, not so much the squirrels and birds.

Panderos wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Panderos wrote:If I'm hungry and I eat and apple, is that rational (eating the apple), even if I don't employ reason? Would people say I acted irrationally?

If you didn't possess a brain capable of reasoning, it would be a-rational.

Ok.. lets assume I possess a brain capable of reasoning but didn't. I just went 'I'm hungry' and then ate the apple.

That's also a-rational, as in not employing reason. Can you just cut to the chase here Panderos? I understand the Socratic method, but I do find it a bit patronising on a discussion forum.

Gallstones wrote:

Just showing what a USA flag looks like, or did you want applause or something?

Shantanu wrote:When I see nationalistic or patriotic people I see the expression of
(1) divisions in the world community which does not see the common cause of humanity living on a single planet;
(2) an emotional viewpoint that implicitly supposes that there is nothing that can be improved in the country that one lives in.
(3) the idea of cultural supremacy.

I think its also worth it to seperate out minority nationalisms from state-sponsored ones. There are strands of Catalan, Scottish, Kurdish, etc. nationalism that are non-xenophobic, far-left, or progressive. They're not "nationalist" in the traditional sense. British, Chinese or German "nationalism" has far worse connotations in my mind than Welsh, Tibetan or Sorbian "nationalism".

davidpatricklawyer wrote:Is it rational to be committed to one's own country above all else, and is it rational to think that your upbringing is the "correct" way? Is it rational to be loyal to one's family simply due to the bias that they themselves instilled in you?

Rationality needs objectives, so it would be theoretically possible, if one inserted these aims into his list of main objectives. Otherwise, I don't see how such attitude could be rational.

Spearthrower wrote:

Gallstones wrote:

Just showing what a USA flag looks like, or did you want applause or something?

It's a picture of a reflection in a window that includes a patriotic object.

No applause necessary. Just throw money.

Gallstones wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Gallstones wrote:

Just showing what a USA flag looks like, or did you want applause or something?

It's a picture of a reflection in a window that includes a patriotic object.

No applause necessary. Just throw money.

The painting wasn't very patriotic!