Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
Alright, so the claim is rational, but since you subjectively experience it as irrational in the moment, you are calling it irrational 100% of the time. It would be impossible for you to do otherwise.
Now, let’s imagine that I say to you, “You know, I realize that it’s impossible to do, but instead of identifying the rational claim as irrational due to it seeming irrational, it would’ve been better had you identified it as rational instead.”
What do you make of this claim? Is this claim rational or irrational? If you call it rational, then you are saying that my impossible claim is rational. If you call it irrational, then you are saying that it’s irrational to identify something rational as rational.
This is the master that you want to hitch yourself to?
I apologize for not making myself clear.
I'll try a different approach:
Let's suppose I'm a novice chessplayer. I know how all the pieces move and their relative trade values (e.g. queen = 9 points, rook = 5 points, bishop = 3 points.)
My friend shows me the moves of a game he just played, and on move 12 he takes one of his opponent's bishops with his queen, and the opponent takes my friend's queen with a pawn. My friend's move is
irrational to me because he gave up a piece that is worth nine points for a piece that is worth only three points. Seems really dumb to me. It turns out my friend's move is not only
not dumb, but is actually
brilliant: The bishop that was captured by the queen was the only piece that was preventing my friend from checkmating his opponent. My friend is "losing" in points by six points, but on the next move he checkmates his opponent. It's called a
sacrifice; giving up material for position. Now that I am "enlightened", I recognize the brilliance and beauty of his move that I originally thought was really stupid (irrational).
So, his move was
always rational, even when I thought it was irrational.
Before I return to the
main topic, am I being clear at this point? Thanks.