Here’s my weekly disclaimer. I wanted to explore my personal train of thought on the subject of rationality before reading someone else’s (published philosophy). So, what’s been written is a stream of consciousness, meaning it’s not an argument and doesn’t really come to a conclusion/answer. Attempting to discern your own opinion on something before taking on someone else’s is important because well basically thought is important, that’s all I’ll say on that. This is also pretty applicable to what this article is about.

We like to talk about our own opinions, and it seems we’d rather give our own opinions and beliefs than hear someone else’s unless you’re a curious little critter

(I’m sorry I said that).

I think this illustrates that we like to believe our opinions and beliefs are superior to others. I mean, that’s why we choose them in the first place because we think they are the best.

A commonly held belief is that the most rational thing to do is choose those which we THINK are the best; we thus decide to have that opinion. “Think” is an important word in that sentence, which is why I aggressively capitalized it, because this isn’t always the outcome. What we think is a rational choice doesn’t always end up being the most rational choice or it doesn’t appear to be rational to someone else.

So, I’ll reiterate what I’m trying to say: for the most part, we try, or at least like to think that we try to base most of our opinions and beliefs on rationality. I feel like this is a very commonly held belief amongst most people despite differing ideologies, but as I analyze this belief, the questions start to pour out about the fundamentals/origins of rationality and why it’s thought to be the overarching guide in decision making. I’m going to be analyzing two specific questions I have.

Is rationality really what’s driving our decisions about opinions? And, going even further, how do we even know what is classified as “rational”?

I mean, one way to define rationality is quality according to logic. I’m going to look at it more specifically as “objectively optimum according to logic.” But, who is to say what is “objectively optimum”? Everything about the human experience (a.k.a. consciousness) guarantees subjectivity in all matters of our existence, except science. We’d like to think that the “objectively optimum” choice is just apparent when we are faced with it, but like I stated earlier, a lot of times that’s not the case.

We choose wrong a lot of the time.

Take procrastination for example. I think the objectively optimum choice when needing to get a paper done would be to work on it as soon as possible in order to have the optimum amount of time to work on it or finish it early to then have free time.

That’s not what I do most of the time though.

I, a partially rational creature, avoid papers until the last minute and then freak out when I have very little time left to finish them. I’ve done it before and I know what the outcome feels like (unpleasant), yet I continue to do it. So what then? Maybe we are rational creatures who don’t always engage their rationality? Or, is man more so irrational? Possibly. And then we discovered that the portion of us that is rational is also the portion that’s productive. So is that it? Is rationality defined by productivity? Obviously not because it can be applied to emotional situations as well.

Let’s consider the death of a loved one. An emotionally rational response to something like death would be to get upset. The reaction of the majority tells us that “the correct” response to a loved one’s death is sadness and grief. I say this because when an individual does not respond this way, we classify it as some type of malfunction (ex. someone who is psychotic), and thus we would classify an emotionless response to death as not “right”, so irrational.

The point is, the majority’s so-called rational reaction has nothing to do with productivity; it’s just a response. Does this mean a rational emotional response is justified as whatever the majority does? What technically differentiates an emotional response from being rational versus irrational? What is required in order for an emotion to be classified as rational? Maybe all emotional responses are rational because they are a part of our biology.

Emotional responses are inherently natural and therefore it isn’t their presence that’s irrational, but their magnitude and how we let them control us. So, it is rational to get angry when you get cut off on the highway because your mind understands the danger it could potentially put you in, so you freak out. However, it is irrational to chase that person off the road or threaten them verbally. Although, the question still remains as to why those specific responses are deemed irrational.

As I am writing this, my friend put up a poll on Instagram asking people what they thought classified a rational emotion, and we were presented with the best explanation thus far (still not having read up on this topic from like...a philosopher, ya know)

“A rational thought is one that acknowledges complexes without allowing feelings of virtue or emotions to cloud that thought process” thank you, Will Brown. But alas, I think this brings me full circle because all of our thoughts are subjective and therefore based on feelings of emotion.

I think the main determinant in what you classify as rational is what you deem as truth.To find this truth for a “rational” opinion, you must peel back whatever the issue at hand is to its most basic level (scientific level) which is the only way to find inherent logic (since it’s rather difficult to argue science, although people can and do). This is the only way to find the truth because of the subjectivity of human thought.

Science is the only thing that goes beyond us and even though we still understand very little about our universe, what we do know to be true (or true enough) is because of science. Since it is the only inherently objective explanation it holds the most truth value. Maybe not all of it, but most so far. So, rationality may just be what is true enough, and therefore a thought can only be rational enough.