« Back to Rationality in Practice
PRINCIPLES FOR RATIONALITY IN PRACTICE
Contents:
So far, we have looked at the key requirements of rationality as well as the broad nature of rationality in practice. Now, I shall try to lay out the principles that actually achieve these key requirements, thereby enabling and advancing the pursuit of rationality in practice.
Non-contradiction in contexts
This reinforces the idea in “Hierarchical and contextual organisation of values” from Integrating the Actual and the Potential from Philosophy in Practice.
Essentials in a narrower context cannot contradict those in a broader context that subsumes it. A broader context — being more abstracted and integrated — would involve fewer but more wide-ranging essentials. Hence, this principle of non-contradiction means we can keep in mind the essentials of a broader context by reference to which we can identify and/or eliminate many potential essentials in a narrower context.
NOTE: Elements of a broader context can have various specific or concrete expressions in narrower contexts; even so, non-contradiction is maintained, wherein none of the different expressions contradict the overarching elements in the broader context.
Identifying logical and causal relationships
Metaphysically, everything in existence is integrated to each other by identity and causality, i.e. by logical and causal relationships. Hence, logical and causal relationships are essential to grasping the nature of things in existence, thereby being essential to grasping reality. Hence, identifying logical and causal relationships is key to rationality and thus morality. In particular, it is important to identify:
Some notable examples of application…
Identifying the relationship between memories and events:
For example, I remember validating a conclusion, this memory has a cause that in my knowledge can only come from actually validating the conclusion; if I have no basis to consider the possibility of the memory being invented by something or someone, I have no basis to doubt what it implies, namely that my conclusion has been validated.
Wholehearted acceptance of the past and the potential:
By causality, what has happened is not open to change. Understanding this is key to understanding that (1) one cannot validly wish for the past to not have happened, and that (2) what happened had to have happened due to the causes that were present. At the same time, it is true that the potential is open to change to some extent. Hence, we do not live in a predetermined universe, but at the same time, what has happened was necessary given the causes that were present. Furthermore, the past can lead to our awareness of things that can help us change the future for the better; without the past having occurred, the lessons and motivations that led to our awareness of what to do and not to do would have no basis and thus would not exist.
A principle that supports the validity of the others
This section is lifted from “Value-seeking is continuous” from The Nature of Value from Ethics.
The basic idea here is: the achievement of values is conditional, time-bound and a constant need in some form, i.e. there is no state of life and no point in life that does not require the pursuit and achievement of values in some form. For a volitional being in particular, the values to be pursued and achieved when conscious necessarily extend to values that sustain one’s self-motivated existence, which means conscious life-affirmation involves not only the automatic pursuit of values (e.g. breathing, digesting, etc.) but also the volitional pursuit of values, not only in the moment but also toward a future potential. Why? Because a volitional existence can only be sustained by integrating one’s present with some potential and by valuing consciousness to the fullest (which is not contradicted by actual unconsciousness, since sustaining the capacity of one’s consciousness to the fullest also requires rest, sleep and perhaps other acute needs, such as surgery, that may involve actual unconsciousness). In other words, to sustain our existence as volitional beings, we need to recognise and strive for some valuable potential (which could be as direct as enjoying the moment).
NOTE: Choosing not to pursue values at any given moment is to choose not to pursue a purpose at the given moment; here, no valid cognition is possible. More precisely, consistent rationality demands consistent value-orientation.
Hence, since (1) the capacity and fullest long-range exercise of consciousness is valuable to our existence, and since (2) the pursuit of value (with the standard of value being life) and thus the need for rationality is ever-present when conscious, even an occasional but deliberate violation of rational principles (e.g. indulging in non-essentials, arbitrary concerns, etc.) is a violation of our value for life as such, in some form. If the violation of rational principles is a habit or practice, then we devalue our life as a whole, ultimately serving to degrade and destroy it.
NOTE: In contemplative or reflective contexts, the purpose is to expand our thinking beyond regular considerations, which means in such contexts, what would be non-essential in other contexts may not be non-essential in these.
As mentioned before, essentials are the basis of a rational use of the mind, since they are the means to most efficiently integrate a context with respect to relevance. Hence, essentials are indispensable to consistent rationality. Below are the specific principles by which essentialisation can be achieved.
Seeking essentials vs. dismissing non-essentials
The act of staying in focus is the act of grasping what is, rather than what is not. The reason is clear: what is not can only be grasped (if at all) with respect to what is. Extending the same principle to any act and result of selective focus, we see that seeking the essentials is the act of staying in focus to grasp what is, i.e. what exists, what knowledge exists about what exists, and what we know about what relates to our purpose and to what extent.
Focusing on the non-essential apart from one’s pursuit of the essentials is to reject one’s grasp of reality in favour of the unreal (e.g. either that which does not exist or that which has no existing relationship within one’s knowledge to what is relevant in one’s context; “unreal” here means either “unreal thing” or “unreal connection to one’s relevant context”). Doing so is essentially an act of turning away from reality, which can never reach the efficacy of turning to reality, except by accident; hence, it can ever be a valid policy. Furthermore, the more you focus on the non-essentials, the more you turn away from dealing with reality and learning more about it, since learning beyond direct observation can only happen with respect to what you know and not apart from it. Moreover, turning away from reality means your awareness is either less capable or incapable of learning more about what could potentially turn out to be essential.
NOTE: A non-essential concern that is not arbitrary may be relevant to your values, but only as an offshoot of essential concerns. In other words, when pursuing your values, a concern may be non-essential with respect to other concerns, but would still be worth pursuing once the essential concerns are addressed sufficiently. In such a case, the non-essential concern is a concern that becomes essential only when the previous essential concerns are addressed sufficiently.
To conclude, the right approach to dealing with reality is not to go over and keep dismissing the non-essentials but rather to seek the essentials and expand your focus based on what you know and what comes into your awareness (which you must keep keen and ready, which is only possible if you keep your focus clear, which in turn is only possible by keeping the essentials in sight and not delving unnecessarily — i.e. arbitrarily — into the non-essentials). Hence, focus on seeking the essentials rather than dismissing the non-essentials. Even logistically, the former approach is the efficient and effective approach in practice while the latter approach tends to proliferate arbitrary concerns and can do so far beyond what can practically be dealt with (since the realm of the arbitrary is always infinite while the realm of knowledge is always finite at any given point).
NOTE 1: Dismissing non-essentials is a valid approach but only as secondary to seeking the essentials. In other words, if you have reason to consider something as potentially essential and relevant for the given context and purpose, then it is valid to check if it is indeed so or if it is a non-essential to be dismissed.
NOTE 2: Dismissing a non-essential does not always mean disregarding it entirely. Rather, dismissing a non-essential concern is about putting it outside your current focus; if it is an arbitrary concern, you put it out of focus for good, whereas if it is a non-essential concern, you put it out of focus for the current context, until it becomes relevant.
NOTE 3: To entertain arbitrary concerns as valid concerns is to abandon reason, because on what basis would you start or stop taking such concerns into account? Since they are arbitrary, such a basis cannot exist in your grasp of reality. Hence, such a basis is necessarily irrational, e.g. out-of-context compulsion, whim, etc.
NOTE 4: If you want to maximise your ability to recognise hidden concerns and possibilities, entertaining arbitrary and non-essential concerns achieves the exact opposite, i.e. it undermines your focus on reality and your ability to recognise valid concerns and possibilities in reality. An essentials-first approach is the only way to maximise your ability to keep your focus on reality clear and alert.
LEXICAL NOTE: Arbitrary concerns and non-essential concerns:
An arbitrary concern is not the same as a non-essential concern (although it is a kind of non-essential concern). A non-essential concern in a given context may be an area of focus that is not entirely irrelevant in the given context, in the sense that it may (in your knowledge) become relevant once the essentials of the given context are addressed sufficiently. An example of a non-arbitrary non-essential concern: buying a tasty treat is not irrelevant to your values, but it is non-essential when grocery shopping and must only be addressed after addressing the essential shopping-list. On the other hand, an arbitrary concern in a given context is an area of focus that has no relevance in the given context. An example of an arbitrary concern: worrying about how a specific phrasing of an idea would affect the reception of your idea, when you have neither the means nor the reason to take such effects into account (if they can be identified at all).
Considerations in knowledge over considerations in ignorance
Awareness is always awareness of what is. Even if you are aware of what is not, it is always with respect to what is. Knowledge is the retained awareness of reality. To consider something in knowledge is to keep one’s awareness on reality. To consider something in ignorance is either (1) the rejection of one’s awareness of reality (including the rejection of what is relevant and/or essential) or (2) the consideration in knowledge of a potential. In case (1), you ultimately act without cognitive purpose and thereby ultimately do not choose to think, to be aware and to value your existence. In case (2), the consideration is still a consideration in knowledge.
For example, if your purpose is to discover the cause of an engine failure, the search for the cause is always with respect to your knowledge of the factors affecting the engine’s functions and your knowledge of the fact that you must explore to discover the responsible factors and thereby achieve your purpose. In other words, a cognitively purposeful consideration in ignorance presupposes consideration in knowledge.
Hence, it is clear that considerations in ignorance must never be prioritised over considerations in knowledge. If you know X but do not know about Y, then your actions must be taken primarily with respect to what you know about X and not primarily with respect to what you do not know about Y. For example, when considering the potential contamination of the food you intend to eat, if you have reason to trust it (e.g. reliability of the source, viable ingredients, no evidence for serious contamination, etc.), then you do not act on what you do not know (e.g. the effect of unknown and unobserved pathogens, hypothetical scenarios by which contamination could have occurred, etc.). To expand on the example in another direction, suppose there is a food-related epidemic that is known to affect your area. In such a case, you have reason to seek further evidence for the safety of the food where possible, since you have knowledge of the widespread and dangerous nature of the epidemic. Hence, when you decide not to eat something because you do not know whether it has been decontaminated appropriately, you decide it based on your knowledge of the epidemic and thus the relevance of decontamination. Hence, we see that considerations must always be rooted in knowledge and never be primarily in ignorance.
NOTE: The level of ignorance or unaccounted factors you can allow for depends on the demands of the context, but even these demands are based primarily on knowledge; in particular, they are based on knowledge about the purpose, the requirements to achieve it and the extent to which you know certain values to be at stake. For example, there is a lot less tolerance for error or ignorance in a space mission or an airplane’s operation than a walk to the park or a drive down the street.
Consider the case where considerations in ignorance are given primacy. Stark examples of the dysfunctional results are: paranoia, obsessive compulsive disorder, indecisive overthinking, unmanageable anxiety and/or panic, etc. Considerations primarily rooted in ignorance lead to dysfunction precisely because they are rooted in the rejection of awareness, i.e. they are detached from reality and may only turn out to be valid on sheer accident.
To summarise…
All rational considerations primarily are and must be considerations in knowledge.
KEY POINTS:
Dismissing the practically unaccountable
The basic statement of the principle is:
“What cannot be taken into account must not be taken into account.”
If it cannot be taken into account, then no mental effort toward it has purpose, which means it has no relevance in the given context. Rationality demands relevance, hence the aforementioned principle. To expand on the principle, something cannot be taken into account if (1) it violates the contraints (of time, effort or resources) with respect to one’s hierarchy of values or (2) it is based on considerations that have no basis in knowledge, i.e. it is based on considerations primarily in ignorance. In case (1), putting time, effort and resources to try to account for something that takes away time, effort and resources from something known to be more relevant is acting against one’s awareness of reality, i.e. acting arbitrarily and hence primarily in ignorance. In case (2), it is more obvious that the action taken would be primarily in ignorance. In both cases, one’s indifference to reality is stronger than one’s affirmation of it, leading to an approach that ultimately denies one’s awareness and thereby one’s existence.
NOTE 1: It is clear that this principle is essentially an extension of the principle of knowledge-orientation.
NOTE 2: If you cannot take a factor into account but it is (in your knowledge) necessary/valuable and possible to learn how to do so, then rationality demands that you learn. However, it is still the case that until you learn, you cannot take it into account. Furthermore, if (in your knowledge) the factor is either unnecessary or not valuable to take into account and/or it is not possible to learn how to take it into account, then the factor must clearly be dismissed.
Purpose is key to cognition, and it is especially key to thinking in essentials; after all, essentials can only be recognised in a certain context with respect to a certain purpose (however broad). Note that life-affirmation is the ultimate purpose, i.e. the purpose of every purpose. Hence, the practice of rationality demands one’s focus on one’s purpose, wherein every purpose is ultimately an aspect of life-affirmation.
In particular, when entering a narrower context, we must grasp how our essential purpose translates into the narrower context, i.e. we must grasp what is and is not relevant to keep in mind, and what narrower purposes to pursue. In fact, when we can only enter a narrower context rationally with respect to a purpose, namely the purpose of concretising and thus realising the broader purpose of life-affirmation as per our current context.
Speaking on a personal basis, each of the above principles I have outlined have taken my approach to rationality from near-paralysing overthinking and compulsiveness (in thought and action) to an alert yet sustainable and life-affirming focus on reality. However, I realised that there is another key principle that ties the above principles and adds an important level of clarity about the means to achieve efficiency in thought without evasion. The principle is as follows:
“The basis of rationality is your grasp of reality in the here and now, within your current relevant cognitive context.”
To expand on this, here are the key areas of focus in pursuing reason:
NOTE: “Relevant” means having an observable or known connection to your purpose.
What about considerations from broader contexts? The answer, in essence, is that the broader premises, i.e. values and knowledge from a broader context, must be internalised before you enter the narrower context. Why? Consider: rationality demands relevance, which means that shifting your focus must be done on the basis of what you know to be present and valuable, i.e. facts that are within your current context. Consider the alternative, i.e. shifting focus out of sheer compulsion or arbitrary concerns (i.e. concerns not arising from what you are aware of within your current context).
Giving into such compulsions and concerns is sheer irrationality, i.e. it is whim-worship, essentially. Why? Consider: on what basis would you start considering them, continue to consider them and stop considering them to move on to other things? Note that unaccountable compulsions and arbitrary concerns have no rational basis (i.e. no known validation with respect to the facts you are aware of). In particular, arbitrary concerns can proliferate endlessly without a rational basis to stop them at any point.
In both cases (i.e. unaccountable compulsions and arbitrary concerns), you may stop when you feel like or when you feel overloaded, but the fact remains that you are either relying on whims or baselessly accepting the validity of some compulsions and concerns up to the point of overload. Also note that since your capacity to focus and exert effort are finite, the aforementioned approaches detach your thinking from your affirmation of reality and your pursuit of values, since the pursuit of values is time-bound, conditional and constant, i.e. integrated across every moment of one’s existence. In other words, the aforementioned approaches are fundamentally reality-denying and anti-value.
In short, since unaccountable compulsions and arbitrary concerns are not based on you awareness of reality in the here and now (with all the relevant retained experiences, premises and knowledge), they are essentially baseless urges and/or baseless considerations that take your focus, time and energy away from reality as it confronts you, thereby detaching your awareness from reality in principle and in practice.
NOTE: Within some contexts, random exploration can be valid, but even in such cases, our awareness of such a current context is the basis for us realising the relevance of such exploration and choosing to pursue it.
What about shifting contexts?
In essence, integrating one’s view of reality over time in essentials helps internalise and carry the relevant aspects of the broader context into any specific context we find ourselves in. Furthermore, before getting into a narrower context, we can choose cues appropriate to the situation (e.g. time, effort spent, goals, awareness if and when it hits you, etc.), on the basis of which we can know when to shift our focus. However, overall, the following three are together the fundamental needs of a fully rational life: (1) focusing on reality in the here and now, (2) pursuing deeper intellectual clarity when and where possible, and (3) practising the right virtues and principles.
KEY POINT 1:
Usually, the internalisation of the broader contexts is the memory of the essence of the broader context; the memory is retained due to a conscious and rational approach to shifting contexts. Hence, when you ask whether something is relevant in the current context, you also ask whether it is relevant in the broader contexts you are coming from (and that you can hold in your awareness).
Hence, the question becomes: “Is X relevant in my current context as well as the relevant broader contexts I have consciously retained when reaching my current context.” However, reference to the relevant broader contexts are present in the current context (if context-shifting is done rationally), which means the relevant broader contexts are explicitly referred to just for emphasis and are in fact implied in the current context.
Hence, the principle can be more clearly stated as follows:
“The basis of rationality is your grasp of reality in the here and now, within your current relevant cognitive context, which also implies the relevant broader cognitive contexts that subsume the current context.”
NOTE: I emphasise that the current cognitive context implies the relevant broader cognitive contexts so as to emphasise that contexts must shift rationally, and that one must never lose sight of the essence of the relevant broader contexts, since the broader contexts condition the full, long-range meaning of the current context.
KEY POINT 2:
All contexts are ultimately integrated, both vertically (i.e. hierarchically) and horizontally (i.e. contextually). This applies to any cognitive and purposeful context. In particular, all value-orientation is integrated by the value for life, and all cognitive contexts are integrated by metaphysics and epistemology. How do we learn the hierarchy of contexts? I posit that we can often identify the broader context under which two seemingly separate contexts are subsumed, based on our grasp of their essential similarities.
Given these conclusions, I reiterate that we must shift contexts based on our current relevant context, whether the shift is from a narrower to a broader context, a broader to a narrower context, or from one context to a separate context. Even in the last case, there is some broader purposeful context (i.e. value-orientation, e.g. desire for knowledge) and cognitive context (e.g. study of an overarching area) that guides the shift, either implicitly or explicitly.
NOTE: I distinguish between purposeful and cognitive context for emphasis only; both kinds are ultimately the same, since a purposeful context relies on facts and reason while a cognitive context relies on purpose and values.
While the above principles show the method of essentialisation, they do not show what to essentialise, i.e. they show the method, not the content. Of course, method without content is useless. Hence, an essential topic to the method of essentialisation is the topic of the essentials of life-affirmation, since life is the ultimate value and the ultimate purpose, which means life-affirmation must be the essential object of focus. In essence, just as all values are aspects of the value for life in the moment, so is all rational focus rooted in the focus on concrete life-affirmation; all specific acts of focus are aspects of the focus on concrete life-affirmation. Read more about life-affirmation here: “Essentialising and integrating life-affirmation” from The Pursuit of Happiness from Philosophy in Practice
By the principles of knowledge-orientation and unaccountability, arbitrary doubts and arbitrary hypotheticals are based primarily in ignorance and cannot be accounted for. Arbitrary doubts and arbitrary hypotheticals are particularly pernicious since they can proliferate indefinitely, waste one’s finite time, energy and resources and thereby lead to indecision and/or irrational judgement. Furthermore, by the principle of essentials-first, dismiss as arbitrary only what you have reason to think may be essential; primarily seek the essentials and dismiss the arbitrary only as a part of the process. In other words, do not even get into arbitrary doubts and arbitrary hypotheticals unless there is reason to think that they may be relevant.
By the principles of knowledge-orientation and unaccountability, irrelevant factors and risks cannot be practically accounted for, especially with respect to one’s knowledge of the essentials and one’s hierarchy of values (e.g. what is more important to you and more significant to your experience of life, especially long-range: avoiding certain pains and risks, or seeking certain rewards and values). Furthermore, by the principle of essentials-first, since seeking the essentials is primary, by the finiteness of focus, much of the less important is excluded by default and must not be included lest what is known to be important and essential are taken out of focus.
A claim of possibility, like all knowledge claims, is contextual, i.e. based on a certain set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions. For example, if I say, “It is possible for a man to kill a tiger,” what I am really saying is, “A man can kill a tiger under certain necessary and/or sufficient conditions, e.g. if the man is able-bodied enough and/or if the man is armed and ready and/or if the tiger is weak enough, etc.”
Hence, it is invalid for me to go up to a crippled old man and tell him that he can kill a rampaging tiger because it is “possible for a man to kill a tiger.” As another example, if I say, “It is possible for me to get infected by contact with outdoor surfaces,” implicit in my statement are conditions (e.g. infected people coming into contact with the surface, the infection being transmissible through the skin, etc.), out of which I must account for only those conditions that I actually can and need to account as per my current context.
Keeping claims of possibility tied to the right context prevents false generalisations, inefficiency and/or ineffectiveness in thought and action due to the consideration of irrelevant or insignificant factors and dangerously false and irresponsible conclusions.
It is key to note that what may be irrelevant, arbitrary or insignificant in some contexts may be useful to explore in other more expansive contexts (e.g. more relaxed contexts, more reflective contexts, brainstorming sessions, intensive study, long-range and/or detailed deliberation, etc.). Exploration is a vital part of expanding the scope of one’s knowledge in the long-run, which makes it relevant sometimes to consider and/or reflect over at least some of what we would normally brush aside. Note that this aspect of rationality does not (and cannot) contradict any of the other aspects. Rather, it is based on the contextual nature of rationality and affirms the relevance of exploration in the right contexts.