Entitled to be irrational/illogical?

I've been lurking around this forum for a while but have abstained from posting, mostly because I felt my posts would be redundant to someone else's argument. But I think I have a pertinent question that has not been directly addressed.

Many or the posts here pertain to the legitimacy of certain beliefs or actions, both real and hypothetical (e.g. religion, death penalty, abortion, and dog deaths). Most of the arguments lie on what is the most logical ("+EV") choice, and arguments about the validity of the logic and assumptions ensue.

My dilemma is this: Is it sometimes valid to be illogical? (I used entitled instead of valid in the title of the post - they are not really the same thing but I'm interested in responses to either.)

I don't mean situations when people use false logic to come up with the correct answer, but rather when someone has used logic to come up what is clearly the best belief/action, and yet denies that action or belief.

I'm interested in what others think - I'll post my thoughts later...

[imported_luckyme]

A lot of the issue revolves around accepting premises. You can have interesting and useful logical discussions built on false premises, whether they are acknowledged to be false or not.

You can have entire philosophies built on premises that are likely false, and most likely they are.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean situations when people use false logic to come up with the correct answer, but rather when someone has used logic to come up what is clearly the best belief/action, and yet denies that action or belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this forum, very few exchanges take a set of premises ( however wacky) and then discuss whatever logically flows from them. I think that's the aspect you are pointing to ?? , the denying of the logical conclusions after accepting the premises.

The distinction between illogical conclusions and unfounded premises is lost on a lot of people. In many situations it's not a problem if the premises are poorly chosen, but there can be no actual debate if the argument itself is illogically structured.

"I believe pigs can fly".
"uh, ok, fine."
"so, a) the moon is made of cheese'
and b) we should consider runways in
the barnyard. "

a) is not logically related to the premise
b) we can discuss further.

Yet, quite often people feel since they were granted carte blanche on the premises, they should be able to freewheel the rest of the way also. Perhaps they should be, but a discussion is impossible if there is no logical thread to lead from one thought to another.

am I anywhere close to the issue you were raising?, luckyme

I think being illogical is a healthy thing sometimes. Seeing the truth all the time can grate on your psyche.
Shooby

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think being illogical is a healthy thing sometimes. Seeing the truth all the time can grate on your psyche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayhaps. I'm married, so I can wallow in nonlogic at will, I just don't see how you can have an illogical 'Discussion' that has any value.
If you want to buy the ruby slippers for reasons you can't explain/express, go fer it. If we're going to discuss whether it's a good/bad idea then something resembling reasoning will have to be added to the exchange or we could just grunt and oof back and forth.

Remember, I'm not advocating any criteria for premises, but see no way to exchange ideas that arise from that arise from them without using threads of logic as the basis. Perhaps if you can give me an example of a healthy illogical discussion it may turn out we're not that far apart in our thinking.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
...when someone has used logic to come up what is clearly the best belief/action, and yet denies that action or belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

In such cases I believe reconciliation is critical to making progress in life, and to make communication worthwhile at all.

For example, if someone regularly eats fast food they should either be able to say positive things about fast food or else they should stop eating it. Otherwise there is really no point in listening to anything they say IMO.

Same goes for gambling, smoking, alcohol and drugs.

Same goes for priests buggering up little boys, politicians who engage in corruption etc.

If you're just going to make excuses for stuff you know you shouldn't do, you might as well shut off your brain, put a zipper on your mouth, and just live by instinct like a wild animal because any thinking and talking will be totally unconstructive and lack credibility. You won't find an audience in me in any case.

[snowden719]

what about a situation in which you a burglar breaks into your house telling you that he will kill your family if you don't give him the combination to your safe. in this case it seems obviously preferable to be irrational because if the burglar knows you are completely irrational there is nothing he can do to get you to open the safe where if you were rational he could use the threat of harm to your family to get you to open the safe. If you are irrational there is nothing the burglar can do,and would then leave the house as there is no way for him to get you to open the safe. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are talki.ng about but this and other instances in which being irrational makes you immune from coercion are obvious situations where it would be best to be irrational

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if someone regularly eats fast food they should either be able to say positive things about fast food or else they should stop eating it. Otherwise there is really no point in listening to anything they say IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

you believe that if someone behaves in a way that can't justify it means they have nothing useful to say about anything?

Logically counter-examples could exists. Are you saying that there aren't any for some reason and if so what is it?

chez

This isn't the way other posters addressed the question, but are you also suggesting that being irrational could basically be +EV for the person?

That could be true, in a contrived way. If the person's logical thought processes are poor, then following social norms maybe a safer and more beneficial way to continue than following his own opinion of rationality (which is of course irrational to more intelligent people).

This is why religion has a purpose. Just as childred can be told Aesop's Fables as an initial carrier of moral teaching, less intelligent adults can be guided into suitable social practices through a bigger fable, religion. (Note, if you have heard "you're aethist, so you must have no morals", this is said by the types of people that need to be made fearful of an overlord in order to rationalise their decisions.)

It leads to why Machiavelli had good ideas but now has bad press. Most people aren't able to make rational political decision. So allowing them to make irrational ones by misleading them as to the effects of those decisions is +EV for the whole society.

[ QUOTE ]
My dilemma is this: Is it sometimes valid to be illogical? (I used entitled instead of valid in the title of the post - they are not really the same thing but I'm interested in responses to either.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what this means. Is it "valid" to be irrational? What do you mean by validity? If validity is measured by reason, then it is obviously not valid to be irrational. If validity means it may have some benefit, then I suppose so (love comes to mind).

As for "entitled" to be irrational, this makes even less sense. Are you asking if you have a right to be irrational? Well, you have a right to think anything you want so long as you don't infringe on other's rights. So go for it and enjoy the freedom to think and believe silly things.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
you believe that if someone behaves in a way that can't justify it means they have nothing useful to say about anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not anything at all, just anything relating to that topic and his philosophy of life in general. I guess I should have made that more clear.