Are Humans at their most basic level rational beings? Do we in general value rationality and logic over the lusts and desires of our unconcsious minds?


and if so, what rammifications does this have for a democracy?

At the most basic level we are all animals.  It takes a practice of intellect to be able to get control of who we are biologically.  The more we practice our intellect, the more we move away from being impulsive, lustful animals and become enlightened creatures.

A Democracy only works perfectly when there is a well informed public.  While mankind works on that, I go by this mantra.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
 - Winston Churchill

this would have been better stated with have you met babies...

seriously, rationality is learned.  Also have you met me?  Honestly I know people tell you that I lack rationality.  If we're generalizing yes on some levels I am rational but on so many others it's just not there.

Rationality is a potential, a byproduct of the machinery used to manufacture that monkey with a brain too big we call a human.

Rationality is a part of our duality. And as most elements of our duality, it usually si the alst resource, the rarest event, as compared to just being monkeys. We are in a stage very very vey very early of the development of the potential of rationality. Currently we live in a backwards age where monkey brain is pressing on rationality and rationality shrinks; we're getting ready to be awful monkeys again in our history, after just too many years of being closer to angels than to beasts.

So no, rationality does not rule, is not primal. It just is of the best we have, and as all best things, it's both precious and uncommon.



(And, off-topic, I never figured P&R sectiom could be interesting... but ti's being once we're temporally rid of the usual atheism vs theism useless bullshit)

It seems to me that we probably need to decide from the start what we mean by ‘rational’.  If we mean that to indicate that we do things ‘for a reason’ then we have have to admit that many higher animals are ‘rational’ – they have desires and perceptions that combine to drive them to action.   I guess the topic is really suggesting that there is something special about the way humans react to events – and I suspect that that’s right.  I once thought that the special thing was the way in which we could put our desires, and projects and plans, ‘on hold’ – just waiting for the right situation to occur before we progressed them.  But there seems to be evidence that other animals can do that – studies of chimpanzee ‘social climbing’, for example.  What I think gives the difference in degree that humans have is the way we can entertain many visions of how things may turn out, and can either take one line that best satisfies our occurent desires or judge that it is better to suppress the desire in order to better satisfy it later – a sort of control over timing.

This certainly gives our species an advantage over other species.  The predator can of course decide not to go ahead in an attack, since the physical danger may be too great, but the human potential victims can plan defences and traps and offensives that the simple predator cannot match.   So it’s good for us to give value to this sort of rationality – it benefits the species.  But whether it is a paramount value, or, to follow the first posts line, whether that makes a difference to ‘democracy’ seems an empty question. 

To begin with, rationality is the servant of our ‘lusts and desires’ – it helps us satisfy them.  At best, it is pari passu: BOTH make us what we are.

Secondly, democracy is but a device to maintain power for the powerful – as such it is a conflicting influence rather than one to demand the support of rationality.  It may be instrumental in helping the underclasses break away from tyranny, but in no way stops the powerful from their over-exercise of power.

Thirdly, democracy as practised in most of the countries we call democratic is as far from rationality as deciding on which mate you prefer – just follow any electoral campaign in any of the western countries: no appeal is made to rational faculties (how to make decisions as to preferable outcomes, how to prioritise what is desirable, how to get the best out of those activities that can be influenced by our actions). 

Fourthly, does anyone believe that a purely rational person is ‘human’?  Who wants to be Mr Spock (who wasn’t even totally rational)?  Rationality (and the term still needs some more definition than I’ve given it) is without doubt a human characteristic – but the ONLY one?   Human essence isn’t a democratic race where the aspect voted for by the most people is the ‘best’.  Try that and you’ll get the usual ‘democratic’ results – the hero with feet of clay, the ‘mission accomplished’ dope with no exit strategy, the disillusion and reality check that follows on from over-valuing the ordinary.

I think the best direction for this topic is in trying to define just what we mean by rationality.

Well... would I be a theological/phylosophical jerk if I asked what "rational" was?

I mean, we all have differnet levels of response and some respond differently than others, and sure you have the psycho paths that murder friends because their ice cream melted, but in the center of af it all.. what is "rationality"?

I would like to consider myself a rational person and a large majority would agree that they themselves are rational... but there are times (on this board, even) where I kinda snapped and wrote an irrational responce to someone elses post.

I guess what I'm wondering is are we really all that good at gauging others, or even our own, level of rationality?

I always saw rationality as being the opposite to emotionality (it that's a word).

Freud wrote: "Man is a wolf to man."

Civilization requires that we subsume some of our natural desires to civilization's rules. Some people are not taught the civilizing lessons in the first place (Newt Gingrich comes to mind). Others are taught, but are unable to find socially acceptable outlets for their passions. They become criminals or become mentally unstable.

Yung wrote:

   Man’s reflecting consciousness, on the one hand, and his hereditary, archetypal nature on the other, in a sense, tear him apart, because his desires pull him in different directions. In this way he falls into continual conflict with himself. Buddhism calls it attachment to the “ten thousand things.” Such a condition cries out for order and synthesis.
   When any natural human function is denied conscious and intentional expression a general disturbance results. Thus it is natural that with the triumph of the Goddess of Reason a general neuroticizing of modern man should set in. This boundary line bristling with barbed wire runs through the psyche of modern man.
       We can recognize our prejudices and illusions only when, from a broader psychological knowledge of ourselves and others, we are prepared to doubt the absolute rightness of our assumptions and compare them carefully and conscientiously with the objective facts.
--The Undiscovered Self