ON RATIONALITY - HIGH IQ RESPONSE FROM CHATGPT (GTFIH)

[registerfasterusing]

My question:
Are humans inherently rational? Every act can be rationalized: a voluntary human sacrifice in Aztec society to achieve a place in the afterlife. Paying back someone who helped you, either commensurably or incommensurably (specifically greater), to secure an alliance or status. Is it just that rationality is a simulacrum, reified in the aftermath and permeation of the Enlightenment? Or, has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought and relations? Perhaps it was simply mediated through pre-Enlightenment means, such as religion and social structures. Rationality assumes temporal awareness, knowledge of the past and anticipation of the future, over absolute presence. Rationality also assumes the placement of the individual above the community; and it emphasizes survival and thus, evolution, production. Can rationality and irrationality coexist? Has the pervasion of the rational produced the diminishment, or perhaps total absence, of the irrational? If so, how has the rational not already collapsed upon itself? There must still be an irrational, perhaps assuming a hauntological role: through the object? The material? Proarche?


ChatGPT’s Response:
This is a dense and potent inquiry. Let’s walk it through layer by layer—not to dissolve its ambiguity, but to tease out the tensions between “rationality,” simulation, and the specter of the irrational.


ONE

Are humans inherently rational?

If we treat rationality as the ability to reason toward goals within a structure of cause-and-effect, then yes—every act can be rationalized post hoc, as you suggest. But this doesn’t mean that the act was rational in origin. To “rationalize” is not the same as to be rational. It is precisely because humans are not inherently rational that we must rationalize.

From a Lacanian angle, desire is irrational by nature—it is not linear, but structured around a lack. Humans act out of lack (manque), not logic. Yet, after the fact, the Symbolic order demands justification. Thus, rationality may emerge only as a function of the Symbolic—a framework imposed after the Real erupts.


TWO

Is rationality a simulacrum?

Yes—and importantly, it may be a Stage 2 or 3 simulacrum, per Baudrillard:

• Stage 1: Rationality as reflection of the real (i.e., the Logos of ancient philosophy, or early religious cosmologies with internal coherence).
• Stage 2: Rationality becomes idealized—as in the Enlightenment: Descartes, Kant, Smith. It pretends to explain everything: politics, economics, ethics.
• Stage 3: Rationality becomes performative and instrumentalized. It simulates coherence, but is no longer anchored in truth. Think: “data-driven decisions” in late capitalism, or technocratic governance.

So yes, “rationality” today is reified and simulacral. But its earlier forms were perhaps more honest in their mediation through myth, taboo, and ritual.


THREE

Has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought?

If we define rationality broadly as goal-oriented coherence within a structure, then even Aztec sacrifice or tribal gifting economies have rational frameworks—but not Enlightenment rationality. These actions are embedded in a symbolic cosmos, not one oriented toward utility, production, or survival alone.

Pre-Enlightenment rationality is mediated through myth, custom, and divine order. It is not necessarily “irrational” but rather non-modern rational—bound to symbolic coherence, not functional efficiency.

Rationality as secular, individual, productive, survivalist—that’s Enlightenment. Earlier logics are rational, but within cosmological systems.


FOUR

Rationality assumes temporal awareness and individualism

Yes, and this is crucial. Enlightenment rationality presumes:

• A linear time model (past–present–future)
• Causal projection into the future
• The individual as a unit of reason
• Progress as a goal

This is not universal. Many premodern systems (e.g., cyclical time, ancestral cosmologies) structure time and agency very differently. Rationality in those systems may exist, but it’s non-teleological and non-individualistic.

So, modern rationality is not universal—it is historical.


FIVE

Can rationality and irrationality coexist?

They not only can—they must.

If rationality requires a system of coherence, then irrationality is its necessary limit. It is the unthought, the unassimilable, the surplus of the Real (Lacan), or the unproductive excess (Bataille).

Baudrillard suggests that the modern has tried to eliminate the irrational—to sanitize it, render it obsolete, or absorb it through simulation (e.g., horror films, drugs, “transgression”). But it persists in residual forms:

• Hauntological irrationality (Derrida): the ghost of what cannot be logically integrated, the future that never arrived.
• The Object: Non-utilitarian, opaque, resistant to symbolic mastery.
• The Proarche: That which is prior to origin, like the maternal abyss, death drive, or pre-symbolic scream.

SIX

Has rationality collapsed upon itself?

In a way, yes. Hyperrationality becomes irrational.

• In economics: Rational-choice theory produces crises it can’t predict (2008, etc.).
• In AI and data: Algorithms simulate rationality but produce black-box unpredictability.
• In politics: Technocratic reason becomes self-parody—producing alienation and nihilism.

This is a kind of auto-collapse of the rational, a return of the repressed irrational—but in disfigured forms.


SEVEN

What remains of the irrational?

The irrational today is not found in madness or myth—those too have been colonized.

It hides in:

• The glitch in AI
• The fetish in consumer desire
• The suicide in a world of optimization
• The Real that erupts in moments of trauma, horror, or ecstasy
• The inhuman—not as the Other, but as the impossible kernel within the self

It no longer speaks—it haunts.


Summary:

• Humans aren’t inherently rational—they are rationalizing.
• Rationality, as we know it, is a historical formation and now a simulacrum.
• Earlier “rationalities” existed but were embedded in cosmologies, not secular utility.
• Rationality requires temporal abstraction and individuation.
• The irrational persists—but as spectral, displaced, sometimes perverted.
• The collapse of the rational is not explosive but implosive—it overcodes itself and becomes absurd.
• The irrational may still govern from the shadows—as the object, the haunt, the proarche.

Let me know if you want to bring Lacan or Bataille in more deeply, or if you want to explore how capitalism specifically metabolizes irrationality.

 

[registerfasterusing]

@girthygirt @autistic_tendencies @Gaygymmaxx

 

[registerfasterusing]

@Vantablack @Depresso @Primalsplit

 

[True truecel]

you are too intelligent for me, please concisely explain the discussion so a 5th grader could understand

 

[registerfasterusing]

@chicolate131 @Jason Voorhees @LTNUser

 

[registerfasterusing]

you are too intelligent for me, please concisely explain the discussion so a 5th grader could understand

Read the summary

 

[xzx_]

My question:
Are humans inherently rational? Every act can be rationalized: a voluntary human sacrifice in Aztec society to achieve a place in the afterlife. Paying back someone who helped you, either commensurably or incommensurably (specifically greater), to secure an alliance or status. Is it just that rationality is a simulacrum, reified in the aftermath and permeation of the Enlightenment? Or, has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought and relations? Perhaps it was simply mediated through pre-Enlightenment means, such as religion and social structures. Rationality assumes temporal awareness, knowledge of the past and anticipation of the future, over absolute presence. Rationality also assumes the placement of the individual above the community; and it emphasizes survival and thus, evolution, production. Can rationality and irrationality coexist? Has the pervasion of the rational produced the diminishment, or perhaps total absence, of the irrational? If so, how has the rational not already collapsed upon itself? There must still be an irrational, perhaps assuming a hauntological role: through the object? The material? Proarche?


ChatGPT’s Response:
This is a dense and potent inquiry. Let’s walk it through layer by layer—not to dissolve its ambiguity, but to tease out the tensions between “rationality,” simulation, and the specter of the irrational.


ONE

Are humans inherently rational?

If we treat rationality as the ability to reason toward goals within a structure of cause-and-effect, then yes—every act can be rationalized post hoc, as you suggest. But this doesn’t mean that the act was rational in origin. To “rationalize” is not the same as to be rational. It is precisely because humans are not inherently rational that we must rationalize.

From a Lacanian angle, desire is irrational by nature—it is not linear, but structured around a lack. Humans act out of lack (manque), not logic. Yet, after the fact, the Symbolic order demands justification. Thus, rationality may emerge only as a function of the Symbolic—a framework imposed after the Real erupts.


TWO

Is rationality a simulacrum?

Yes—and importantly, it may be a Stage 2 or 3 simulacrum, per Baudrillard:

• Stage 1: Rationality as reflection of the real (i.e., the Logos of ancient philosophy, or early religious cosmologies with internal coherence).
• Stage 2: Rationality becomes idealized—as in the Enlightenment: Descartes, Kant, Smith. It pretends to explain everything: politics, economics, ethics.
• Stage 3: Rationality becomes performative and instrumentalized. It simulates coherence, but is no longer anchored in truth. Think: “data-driven decisions” in late capitalism, or technocratic governance.

So yes, “rationality” today is reified and simulacral. But its earlier forms were perhaps more honest in their mediation through myth, taboo, and ritual.


THREE

Has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought?

If we define rationality broadly as goal-oriented coherence within a structure, then even Aztec sacrifice or tribal gifting economies have rational frameworks—but not Enlightenment rationality. These actions are embedded in a symbolic cosmos, not one oriented toward utility, production, or survival alone.

Pre-Enlightenment rationality is mediated through myth, custom, and divine order. It is not necessarily “irrational” but rather non-modern rational—bound to symbolic coherence, not functional efficiency.

Rationality as secular, individual, productive, survivalist—that’s Enlightenment. Earlier logics are rational, but within cosmological systems.


FOUR

Rationality assumes temporal awareness and individualism

Yes, and this is crucial. Enlightenment rationality presumes:

• A linear time model (past–present–future)
• Causal projection into the future
• The individual as a unit of reason
• Progress as a goal

This is not universal. Many premodern systems (e.g., cyclical time, ancestral cosmologies) structure time and agency very differently. Rationality in those systems may exist, but it’s non-teleological and non-individualistic.

So, modern rationality is not universal—it is historical.


FIVE

Can rationality and irrationality coexist?

They not only can—they must.

If rationality requires a system of coherence, then irrationality is its necessary limit. It is the unthought, the unassimilable, the surplus of the Real (Lacan), or the unproductive excess (Bataille).

Baudrillard suggests that the modern has tried to eliminate the irrational—to sanitize it, render it obsolete, or absorb it through simulation (e.g., horror films, drugs, “transgression”). But it persists in residual forms:

• Hauntological irrationality (Derrida): the ghost of what cannot be logically integrated, the future that never arrived.
• The Object: Non-utilitarian, opaque, resistant to symbolic mastery.
• The Proarche: That which is prior to origin, like the maternal abyss, death drive, or pre-symbolic scream.

SIX

Has rationality collapsed upon itself?

In a way, yes. Hyperrationality becomes irrational.

• In economics: Rational-choice theory produces crises it can’t predict (2008, etc.).
• In AI and data: Algorithms simulate rationality but produce black-box unpredictability.
• In politics: Technocratic reason becomes self-parody—producing alienation and nihilism.

This is a kind of auto-collapse of the rational, a return of the repressed irrational—but in disfigured forms.


SEVEN

What remains of the irrational?

The irrational today is not found in madness or myth—those too have been colonized.

It hides in:

• The glitch in AI
• The fetish in consumer desire
• The suicide in a world of optimization
• The Real that erupts in moments of trauma, horror, or ecstasy
• The inhuman—not as the Other, but as the impossible kernel within the self

It no longer speaks—it haunts.


Summary:

• Humans aren’t inherently rational—they are rationalizing.
• Rationality, as we know it, is a historical formation and now a simulacrum.
• Earlier “rationalities” existed but were embedded in cosmologies, not secular utility.
• Rationality requires temporal abstraction and individuation.
• The irrational persists—but as spectral, displaced, sometimes perverted.
• The collapse of the rational is not explosive but implosive—it overcodes itself and becomes absurd.
• The irrational may still govern from the shadows—as the object, the haunt, the proarche.

Let me know if you want to bring Lacan or Bataille in more deeply, or if you want to explore how capitalism specifically metabolizes irrationality.

Dnr

 

[girthygirt]

Read every molecule. Very interesting question, if I'm being totally honest, to give a complete answer, I'd like to study the topic more myself

 

[True truecel]

Summary:

• Humans aren’t inherently rational—they are rationalizing.
• Rationality, as we know it, is a historical formation and now a simulacrum.
• Earlier “rationalities” existed but were embedded in cosmologies, not secular utility.
• Rationality requires temporal abstraction and individuation.
• The irrational persists—but as spectral, displaced, sometimes perverted.
• The collapse of the rational is not explosive but implosive—it overcodes itself and becomes absurd.
• The irrational may still govern from the shadows—as the object, the haunt, the proarche.

Let me know if you want to bring Lacan or Bataille in more deeply, or if you want to explore how capitalism specifically metabolizes irrationality.

what defines what 'rationality' is?

i think its just power

 

[registerfasterusing]

what defines what 'rationality' is?

i think its just power

Read the whole thing now

 

[BeanCelll]

Brutal read, not because of it being innately ruthless or anything of the sort but because I had to google about 5 different words to even moderately follow along.

 

[registerfasterusing]

Brutal read, not because of it being innately ruthless or anything of the sort but because I had to google about 5 different words to even moderately follow along.

Opinion?

 

[True truecel]

Read the whole thing now

i will summarize it with chatgpt even more

CHAT ----Are Humans Rational?​

Humans don't always think logically, but they try to explain their actions with reasons. For example, Aztecs sacrificed people to gain a better afterlife, and people repay favors to build alliances. These acts seem rational after the fact, but they might come from deeper, less logical desires.

Rational thinking, as we know it today, started during a time called the Enlightenment. Before that, people used religion and traditions to make sense of things. Rationality often focuses on individuals planning for the future, unlike older ways that focused on the group or cycles of time.

Rational and irrational ideas can exist together. Even in a world full of logic, irrational things like random glitches, strong emotions, or unexplained desires still pop up. If everything was perfectly rational, it might fall apart because it ignores the messy, human side of life. The irrational is like a shadow—it’s always there, even if hidden.
CHAT---

i see
so rational thinking was discovered during the enlightenment, not invented. but still tho what defines those 'rational' ideas? like for example lets say a super powerful group of aliens enslaved the human race (comparable to african slave trade to americas of ethical wrongdoings). the alien group can just brainwash humans to believe whatever they want, and overtime the children born will believe that.

but just like how rational ethical ideas emerged again about how all humans are equal, do you think rationality will just come back into existence whenever power is gradually equalized? bc i dont see how rationality can exist if u can just brainwash ppl and give them ur own rational framework like moral relativism

 

[BeanCelll]

Opinion?

Good thread actually found myself learning something instead of mindlessly rotting away, 6 was probably the read I found to be the most intriguing.

 

[registerfasterusing]

i will summarize it with chatgpt even more

CHAT ----Are Humans Rational?​

Humans don't always think logically, but they try to explain their actions with reasons. For example, Aztecs sacrificed people to gain a better afterlife, and people repay favors to build alliances. These acts seem rational after the fact, but they might come from deeper, less logical desires.

Rational thinking, as we know it today, started during a time called the Enlightenment. Before that, people used religion and traditions to make sense of things. Rationality often focuses on individuals planning for the future, unlike older ways that focused on the group or cycles of time.

Rational and irrational ideas can exist together. Even in a world full of logic, irrational things like random glitches, strong emotions, or unexplained desires still pop up. If everything was perfectly rational, it might fall apart because it ignores the messy, human side of life. The irrational is like a shadow—it’s always there, even if hidden.
CHAT---

i see
so rational thinking was discovered during the enlightenment, not invented. but still tho what defines those 'rational' ideas? like for example lets say a super powerful group of aliens enslaved the human race (comparable to african slave trade to americas of ethical wrongdoings). the alien group can just brainwash humans to believe whatever they want, and overtime the children born will believe that.

but just like how rational ethical ideas emerged again about how all humans are equal, do you think rationality will just come back into existence whenever power is gradually equalized? bc i dont see how rationality can exist if u can just brainwash ppl and give them ur own rational framework like moral relativism

LET ME KNOW IF THIS HELPS. IF NOT, FEEL FREE TO ASK I CAN CLARIFY MYSELF

That’s a sharp question, and it hits the core paradox of Enlightenment rationality: if “rationality” can be manipulated, brainwashed, overwritten, or engineered—was it ever objective in the first place?

Let’s unpack the main issues and respond step by step.




1. “Rationality was discovered, not invented” — Is this true?

The claim suggests that rationality is a pre-existing, universal structure—like mathematics or gravity—just waiting to be uncovered. This is the Enlightenment fantasy: that reason is natural, universal, and accessible to all minds once freed from superstition.

But:

• From a Nietzschean or poststructuralist view (Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard), rationality is not discovered—it is constructed, historically produced within a specific cultural episteme.
• Even what counts as “rational” changes with time and context: logic, ethics, causality, truth all shift.
• Thus, rationality is not an absolute thing, but a historically-conditioned framework.

So: rationality isn’t discovered like gold—it’s constructed like architecture, and that architecture can be torn down, replaced, or simulated.




2. “What if aliens enslave humans and brainwash them?”

This is not just sci-fi. It’s a metaphor for ideological power—how dominant classes or systems impose meaning.

The brainwashed children believe the aliens’ ideology is truth. Just like how:

• Southern plantation owners taught slaves Christianity to internalize obedience.
• Capitalism teaches wage labor as freedom.
• Colonizers imposed moral systems on the colonized.

So the question is not “can rationality be imposed?”—yes, it can. The real question is:

Can true rationality re-emerge despite ideological suppression?



3. Does rationality always “come back” when power is equalized?

This assumes there’s a natural tendency for rationality to reassert itself when domination loosens. That’s a kind of teleological optimism: history bends toward reason and equality.

But reality doesn’t always support that.

• Sometimes, power collapses and irrationality floods in (Weimar to Nazism).
• Sometimes, power repackages itself as rational (liberalism masking capital accumulation).
• Sometimes, people internalize their oppression permanently.

So no—rationality doesn’t automatically “return.” It must be fought for and reconstructed. It’s not self-restoring.



4. Moral relativism and engineered rationalities

Yes, this is the real danger: if “rationality” can be fabricated, then any moral system can claim to be “reasonable.”

• Nazis used “rational” science to justify eugenics.
• Slaveowners used “natural law” to defend hierarchy.
• Capitalism justifies inequality through “meritocracy.”

This shows that reason can be weaponized. As Baudrillard would say, we no longer operate within truth vs falsity, but within simulation—rationality without reference to any real grounding.

So the fear is legitimate: rationality can be simulated, hijacked, manufactured.



So is there any “real” rationality?

Possibly—but only if we define rationality not as a fixed content, but as a method of self-questioning.

That means:

• A rational system is one that can critique itself.
• A rational ethics is not static, but open to being destabilized.
• The moment you cannot question the “rationality” of the system you’re in—it has become ideology, not reason.

Final Response:

“What we call ‘rationality’ isn’t something that just exists waiting to be found—it’s shaped by power, language, history, and culture. Brainwashing, like you said, can implant entirely new frameworks of what’s ‘reasonable.’ So no, rationality doesn’t just ‘come back’ when power is balanced—it has to be reclaimed, reconstructed, and contested. True rationality is not about fixed morals, but about a system’s ability to question itself and its own foundations. If you’re forbidden from doing that—you’re not in reason. You’re in ideology.”

 

[Primalsplit]

I just want to fuck some bitches.

 

[True truecel]

LET ME KNOW IF THIS HELPS. IF NOT, FEEL FREE TO ASK I CAN CLARIFY MYSELF

That’s a sharp question, and it hits the core paradox of Enlightenment rationality: if “rationality” can be manipulated, brainwashed, overwritten, or engineered—was it ever objective in the first place?

Let’s unpack the main issues and respond step by step.




1. “Rationality was discovered, not invented” — Is this true?

The claim suggests that rationality is a pre-existing, universal structure—like mathematics or gravity—just waiting to be uncovered. This is the Enlightenment fantasy: that reason is natural, universal, and accessible to all minds once freed from superstition.

But:

• From a Nietzschean or poststructuralist view (Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard), rationality is not discovered—it is constructed, historically produced within a specific cultural episteme.
• Even what counts as “rational” changes with time and context: logic, ethics, causality, truth all shift.
• Thus, rationality is not an absolute thing, but a historically-conditioned framework.

So: rationality isn’t discovered like gold—it’s constructed like architecture, and that architecture can be torn down, replaced, or simulated.




2. “What if aliens enslave humans and brainwash them?”

This is not just sci-fi. It’s a metaphor for ideological power—how dominant classes or systems impose meaning.

The brainwashed children believe the aliens’ ideology is truth. Just like how:

• Southern plantation owners taught slaves Christianity to internalize obedience.
• Capitalism teaches wage labor as freedom.
• Colonizers imposed moral systems on the colonized.

So the question is not “can rationality be imposed?”—yes, it can. The real question is:

Can true rationality re-emerge despite ideological suppression?



3. Does rationality always “come back” when power is equalized?

This assumes there’s a natural tendency for rationality to reassert itself when domination loosens. That’s a kind of teleological optimism: history bends toward reason and equality.

But reality doesn’t always support that.

• Sometimes, power collapses and irrationality floods in (Weimar to Nazism).
• Sometimes, power repackages itself as rational (liberalism masking capital accumulation).
• Sometimes, people internalize their oppression permanently.

So no—rationality doesn’t automatically “return.” It must be fought for and reconstructed. It’s not self-restoring.



4. Moral relativism and engineered rationalities

Yes, this is the real danger: if “rationality” can be fabricated, then any moral system can claim to be “reasonable.”

• Nazis used “rational” science to justify eugenics.
• Slaveowners used “natural law” to defend hierarchy.
• Capitalism justifies inequality through “meritocracy.”

This shows that reason can be weaponized. As Baudrillard would say, we no longer operate within truth vs falsity, but within simulation—rationality without reference to any real grounding.

So the fear is legitimate: rationality can be simulated, hijacked, manufactured.



So is there any “real” rationality?

Possibly—but only if we define rationality not as a fixed content, but as a method of self-questioning.

That means:

• A rational system is one that can critique itself.
• A rational ethics is not static, but open to being destabilized.
• The moment you cannot question the “rationality” of the system you’re in—it has become ideology, not reason.

Final Response:

“What we call ‘rationality’ isn’t something that just exists waiting to be found—it’s shaped by power, language, history, and culture. Brainwashing, like you said, can implant entirely new frameworks of what’s ‘reasonable.’ So no, rationality doesn’t just ‘come back’ when power is balanced—it has to be reclaimed, reconstructed, and contested. True rationality is not about fixed morals, but about a system’s ability to question itself and its own foundations. If you’re forbidden from doing that—you’re not in reason. You’re in ideology.”

so there is no such thing as universal rationality, just a temporary rationality that we trust because its been established by some very smart people and continuously critiqued and improved

acknowledging that our 'enlightnment' time period rationality (idk what its actually called, renaissance, modern, western or whatever) is false in some way, would mean allowing moral relativism to exist in our society which is a slippery slope.

so we consciously choose to be extremely careful on our understanding of rationality and conservative in terms of allowing it to be 'corrected'.

however, im sure like 99.9999% of people dont think like this, and just take rationality for granted, its only the philosophers and autists who spend all day theorizing about this stuff that understand this concept.

at this point im sure rationality is relativistic and im wondering how people can even claim that universal rationality exists without attaching their beliefs to a higher power that is OMNI in every way

and thennnnn comes the questions of if god exists, what is right and wrong, why does god allow evil, what god is the right god, what is the proof for gods existence blah blah which are all impossible to prove as far as i know, its basically just vibes

 

[registerfasterusing]

so there is no such thing as universal rationality, just a temporary rationality that we trust because its been established by some very smart people and continuously critiqued and improved

acknowledging that our 'enlightnment' time period rationality (idk what its actually called, renaissance, modern, western or whatever) is false in some way, would mean allowing moral relativism to exist in our society which is a slippery slope.

so we consciously choose to be extremely careful on our understanding of rationality and conservative in terms of allowing it to be 'corrected'.

however, im sure like 99.9999% of people dont think like this, and just take rationality for granted, its only the philosophers and autists who spend all day theorizing about this stuff that understand this concept.

at this point im sure rationality is relativistic and im wondering how people can even claim that universal rationality exists without attaching their beliefs to a higher power that is OMNI in every way

and thennnnn comes the questions of if god exists, what is right and wrong, why does god allow evil, what god is the right god, what is the proof for gods existence blah blah which are all impossible to prove as far as i know, its basically just vibes

Yes, u understand it well.

All of these modes of rationality are ultimately attempts to ‘fill’ the lack of a nucleus at the core of our existence, one that we as humans so greatly desire. God is an easy way of doing that, but has its own complications that are particularly relevant in post-Enlightenment society, provoking the rise of contemporary rationality.

 

[registerfasterusing]

Bump

 

[registerfasterusing]

@Gamerspyy786

 

[registerfasterusing]

B

 

[Primalsplit]

so there is no such thing as universal rationality, just a temporary rationality that we trust because its been established by some very smart people and continuously critiqued and improved

acknowledging that our 'enlightnment' time period rationality (idk what its actually called, renaissance, modern, western or whatever) is false in some way, would mean allowing moral relativism to exist in our society which is a slippery slope.

so we consciously choose to be extremely careful on our understanding of rationality and conservative in terms of allowing it to be 'corrected'.

however, im sure like 99.9999% of people dont think like this, and just take rationality for granted, its only the philosophers and autists who spend all day theorizing about this stuff that understand this concept.

at this point im sure rationality is relativistic and im wondering how people can even claim that universal rationality exists without attaching their beliefs to a higher power that is OMNI in every way

and thennnnn comes the questions of if god exists, what is right and wrong, why does god allow evil, what god is the right god, what is the proof for gods existence blah blah which are all impossible to prove as far as i know, its basically just vibes

This is semantics. Don't confuse established culture with real rationality.

Btw God isn't real. Lol.

 

[True truecel]

This is semantics. Don't confuse established culture with real rationality.

Btw God isn't real. Lol.

what is real rationality?

 

[registerfasterusing]

LET ME KNOW IF THIS HELPS. IF NOT, FEEL FREE TO ASK I CAN CLARIFY MYSELF

That’s a sharp question, and it hits the core paradox of Enlightenment rationality: if “rationality” can be manipulated, brainwashed, overwritten, or engineered—was it ever objective in the first place?

Let’s unpack the main issues and respond step by step.




1. “Rationality was discovered, not invented” — Is this true?

The claim suggests that rationality is a pre-existing, universal structure—like mathematics or gravity—just waiting to be uncovered. This is the Enlightenment fantasy: that reason is natural, universal, and accessible to all minds once freed from superstition.

But:

• From a Nietzschean or poststructuralist view (Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard), rationality is not discovered—it is constructed, historically produced within a specific cultural episteme.
• Even what counts as “rational” changes with time and context: logic, ethics, causality, truth all shift.
• Thus, rationality is not an absolute thing, but a historically-conditioned framework.

So: rationality isn’t discovered like gold—it’s constructed like architecture, and that architecture can be torn down, replaced, or simulated.




2. “What if aliens enslave humans and brainwash them?”

This is not just sci-fi. It’s a metaphor for ideological power—how dominant classes or systems impose meaning.

The brainwashed children believe the aliens’ ideology is truth. Just like how:

• Southern plantation owners taught slaves Christianity to internalize obedience.
• Capitalism teaches wage labor as freedom.
• Colonizers imposed moral systems on the colonized.

So the question is not “can rationality be imposed?”—yes, it can. The real question is:

Can true rationality re-emerge despite ideological suppression?



3. Does rationality always “come back” when power is equalized?

This assumes there’s a natural tendency for rationality to reassert itself when domination loosens. That’s a kind of teleological optimism: history bends toward reason and equality.

But reality doesn’t always support that.

• Sometimes, power collapses and irrationality floods in (Weimar to Nazism).
• Sometimes, power repackages itself as rational (liberalism masking capital accumulation).
• Sometimes, people internalize their oppression permanently.

So no—rationality doesn’t automatically “return.” It must be fought for and reconstructed. It’s not self-restoring.



4. Moral relativism and engineered rationalities

Yes, this is the real danger: if “rationality” can be fabricated, then any moral system can claim to be “reasonable.”

• Nazis used “rational” science to justify eugenics.
• Slaveowners used “natural law” to defend hierarchy.
• Capitalism justifies inequality through “meritocracy.”

This shows that reason can be weaponized. As Baudrillard would say, we no longer operate within truth vs falsity, but within simulation—rationality without reference to any real grounding.

So the fear is legitimate: rationality can be simulated, hijacked, manufactured.



So is there any “real” rationality?

Possibly—but only if we define rationality not as a fixed content, but as a method of self-questioning.

That means:

• A rational system is one that can critique itself.
• A rational ethics is not static, but open to being destabilized.
• The moment you cannot question the “rationality” of the system you’re in—it has become ideology, not reason.

Final Response:

“What we call ‘rationality’ isn’t something that just exists waiting to be found—it’s shaped by power, language, history, and culture. Brainwashing, like you said, can implant entirely new frameworks of what’s ‘reasonable.’ So no, rationality doesn’t just ‘come back’ when power is balanced—it has to be reclaimed, reconstructed, and contested. True rationality is not about fixed morals, but about a system’s ability to question itself and its own foundations. If you’re forbidden from doing that—you’re not in reason. You’re in ideology.”

what is real rationality?

 

[Primalsplit]

what is real rationality?

2+2 equals 4 is real rationality based in mathematics. Observing the laws of physics and building a car through their application is rationality. Anything rooted in calculation is rationality.

Thinking any part of this can be relative is not. Attaching any kind of belief to anything is not rationality. You just surrender to someone else's idea, that which you don't know if it's rooted in reality or not.

Laws of the universe are universal. They don't change from person to person.

 

[registerfasterusing]

B

 

[registerfasterusing]

2+2 equals 4 is real rationality based in mathematics. Observing the laws of physics and building a car through their application is rationality. Anything rooted in calculation is rationality.

Thinking any part of this can be relative is not. Attaching any kind of belief to anything is not rationality. You just surrender to someone else's idea, that which you don't know if it's rooted in reality or not.

Laws of the universe are universal. They don't change from person to person.

crazy timing wtf

 

[True truecel]

2+2 equals 4 is real rationality based in mathematics. Observing the laws of physics and building a car through their application is rationality. Anything rooted in calculation is rationality.

Thinking any part of this can be relative is not. Attaching any kind of belief to anything is not rationality. You just surrender to someone else's idea, that which you don't know if it's rooted in reality or not.

Laws of the universe are universal. They don't change from person to person.

ok fair enough. but rationality has nothing to do with ethics right?

 

[Primalsplit]

ok fair enough. but rationality has nothing to do with ethics right?

Ah. I see. I guess that's where it gets very muzzy. There is a very rational component to ethics.

It is important that we cooperate with one another, because that's beneficial to both parties. And even more importantly, we need to not actively harm each other to benefit both. These premises are very important because we have to live together. Even animals employ some form of ethics. It is very rooted in reality, survival and thrival.

But of course differences of opinion arise when it comes to details. Those differences of opinions are most likely formed through the different needs and conditions of those people. Hah! I guess from that perspective it may seem that morality which is a subsegment of rationality can appear relative in a sense. But even then, there can always be found a solution to a morality conflict with complete regard to the present conditions at hand. So morality can not be relativistic at all. Any who claim so is likely to be found employing deception for the sake of their own advantage.

 

[True truecel]

But even then, there can always be found a solution to a morality conflict with complete regard to the present conditions at hand.

bro

but how do you know this for sure? How are you so sure there's always a solution for every moral conflict? And even if there was a solution, how do you know if the parties having the conflict are even intelligent enough to find one?

Now I'm not saying the people in this hypothetical are dumb, let's just say they all have average intelligence. Obviously they have sentience and are capable of rational thinking. However, just because they have those qualities doesn't mean they can even come up with a resolution.

I guess like maybe if we used the infinite monkey theory or whatever, sure, eventually the two sides would figure something out given unlimited time.

 

[Primalsplit]

bro

but how do you know this for sure? How are you so sure there's always a solution for every moral conflict? And even if there was a solution, how do you know if the parties having the conflict are even intelligent enough to find one?

Now I'm not saying the people in this hypothetical are dumb, let's just say they all have average intelligence. Obviously they have sentience and are capable of rational thinking. However, just because they have those qualities doesn't mean they can even come up with a resolution.

I guess like maybe if we used the infinite monkey theory or whatever, sure, eventually the two sides would figure something out given unlimited time.

That's irrelevant. In 10th century there were no planes, computers, modern cars yet invented. But the principles behind constructing these objects were still valid. Human competence did not influence the principles of reality.

 

[True truecel]

That's irrelevant. In 10th century there were no planes, computers, modern cars yet invented. But the principles behind constructing these objects were still valid. Human competence did not influence the principles of reality.

wait hold on the specific type of intelligence im talking about isn't based on knowledge or the development of society, it's just pure intelligence if that makes sense

im saying regardless of any time period, you can't be sure there's a solution to a moral conflict first of all, and nor can you be sure that the people in that given situation would be able to find a solution if one existed - just because they aren't smart enough within those circumstances

 

[CD34]

Mirin philosophy cel

 

[Primalsplit]

wait hold on the specific type of intelligence im talking about isn't based on knowledge or the development of society, it's just pure intelligence if that makes sense

im saying regardless of any time period, you can't be sure there's a solution to a moral conflict first of all, and nor can you be sure that the people in that given situation would be able to find a solution if one existed - just because they aren't smart enough within those circumstances

What you're arguing is not even my point.

If there's no way to settle an argument, then that becomes a new rule. It doesn't make it relative at all? What are you suggesting exactly?

 

[True truecel]

What you're arguing is not even my point.

If there's no way to settle an argument, then that becomes a new rule. It doesn't make it relative at all? What are you suggesting exactly?

wdym that becomes a new rule? like what does that mean though

let's use Israel v Palestine as an example. like suppose if theoretically there was in fact no way to settle the ethical issue (there probably is), then what new rule would be invented - except for keep fighting until one side overpowers the other?

 

[bourgeoizyzz]

do humans think without reference to their current context?

no.

wow, that was hard to do without a wall of text, die op

 

[registerfasterusing]

do humans think without reference to their current context?

no.

wow, that was hard to do without a wall of text, die op

Basically

 

[TYLER IN NARRATOR]

 

[registerfasterusing]

View attachment 3930999

@2414763h classic

 

[Primalsplit]

wdym that becomes a new rule? like what does that mean though

let's use Israel v Palestine as an example. like suppose if theoretically there was in fact no way to settle the ethical issue (there probably is), then what new rule would be invented - except for keep fighting until one side overpowers the other?

It's not like that's a good example. In War it's usually might is right. I suppose in the modern world, PR and propaganda is very important too; so might+manipulation is right.

In no sense it is relative at all though. If it appears relative, it's usually because at least one side is lobbying for their interests. Which is essentially how all the court cases are handled practically. The thing about morality is, it's a tool far more than it is a philosophy; even though it gets discussed as a form of philosophy. But we can not essentially seperate morality from it's pragmatistic roots. I think that is the only rational angle we can approach morality from.

 

[2414763h]

@2414763h classic

Big W for me

 

[True truecel]

It's not like that's a good example. In War it's usually might is right. I suppose in the modern world, PR and propaganda is very important too; so might+manipulation is right.

In no sense it is relative at all though. If it appears relative, it's usually because at least one side is lobbying for their interests. Which is essentially how all the court cases are handled practically. The thing about morality is, it's a tool far more than it is a philosophy; even though it gets discussed as a form of philosophy. But we can not essentially seperate morality from it's pragmatistic roots. I think that is the only rational angle we can approach morality from.

ok that makes sense about the might is right stuff

alr suppose we just remove the might and manipulation and other factors from the situation - the thing about morality is ur assuming its even possible to come to a conclusion that satisfies both sides. like what does satisfy even mean morally? if people have fundamentally different moral views, then even on an even playing field theres a chance they may not be able to agree

for example, if we just put Netanyahu and the leader of Hamas in a room together, made sure they weren't able to harm each other, and they were willing to talk to each other in good faith (by some miracle), ur making the assumption that they'll find a solution that morally works for the both of them

my argument is that this wont work, some moral issues are genuinely just relativistic and must be forced through Power, whether that be might, propoganda, PR, whatever

 

[Primalsplit]

ok that makes sense about the might is right stuff

alr suppose we just remove the might and manipulation and other factors from the situation - the thing about morality is ur assuming its even possible to come to a conclusion that satisfies both sides. like what does satisfy even mean morally? if people have fundamentally different moral views, then even on an even playing field theres a chance they may not be able to agree

for example, if we just put Netanyahu and the leader of Hamas in a room together, made sure they weren't able to harm each other, and they were willing to talk to each other in good faith (by some miracle), ur making the assumption that they'll find a solution that morally works for the both of them

my argument is that this wont work, some moral issues are genuinely just relativistic and must be forced through Power, whether that be might, propoganda, PR, whatever

I don't think morality is about satisfying both sides. If one side wants to just forcefully take things from someone else, that is theft or coercion. Justice on this matter would please the intended victim but not the aggressor.

The issue gets muddled when one sides claims that the belongings of the other belonged to his grandfather and that his grandfather took him by force. And then the victim side says that it was payment for the land the other grandfather stole from his grandfather. Which gets rebutted and vica versa. It's all about tracking things down and finding out who is right.

But ofc world leaders are not really occupied with that beyond appearing moral. They have to satisfy themselves, the men around them under their command and vica versa. It is a game they play to win. It's all about winning. So they confuscate the truth, forge fake documents, plant false evidence, buy the judge, buy the jury, threaten the jury, create fake narratives, employ misleading language. The average joe won't be able to keep track of it down. If there were to be a trial, it would last for months if not for years.

But it is not about distorting the basic rules of morality, it is manuevering within it's frameworks. To have an understanding of this you need to seperate the theory from practice first. Then you need to understand and fully set your mind on theory first, before moving onto the practicality and real world examples of it.

Because you can't only look at recent real life examples and deduce everything from it about morality. So, during the first stage of grasping this concept you shouldn't even be looking at examples so as to avoid confusion.

 

[True truecel]

I don't think morality is about satisfying both sides. If one side wants to just forcefully take things from someone else, that is theft or coercion. Justice on this matter would please the intended victim but not the aggressor.

The issue gets muddled when one sides claims that the belongings of the other belonged to his grandfather and that his grandfather took him by force. And then the victim side says that it was payment for the land the other grandfather stole from his grandfather. Which gets rebutted and vica versa. It's all about tracking things down and finding out who is right.

But ofc world leaders are not really occupied with that beyond appearing moral. They have to satisfy themselves, the men around them under their command and vica versa. It is a game they play to win. It's all about winning. So they confuscate the truth, forge fake documents, plant false evidence, buy the judge, buy the jury, threaten the jury, create fake narratives, employ misleading language. The average joe won't be able to keep track of it down. If there were to be a trial, it would last for months if not for years.

But it is not about distorting the basic rules of morality, it is manuevering within it's frameworks. To have an understanding of this you need to seperate the theory from practice first. Then you need to understand and fully set your mind on theory first, before moving onto the practicality and real world examples of it.

Because you can't only look at recent real life examples and deduce everything from it about morality. So, during the first stage of grasping this concept you shouldn't even be looking at examples so as to avoid confusion.

what are those rules of morality?

or is it not so much the actual rules of morality but the rules of the framework for approaching a moral dilemma that you're talking about?

like the objective morality ur describing is inconceivable to be me bc its not like you can just say some thing equivalent to 1+1=2 in terms of morality. sure you can something like "murder is wrong", and then what always follows is a "yes, but"

also yea obviously people can do all kinds of shady shit, esp world leaders bc of Power, but im just asking 2 things:
1) Who decides/decided the framework for reasoning about morality?
2) is this framework so reasonable and thorough that any person who is conscious, rationally thinking, and engages in good faith will agree with it?

I do have a moral compass btw im not a relativist, but my goal is to get people to agree w me so we can come to a consensus, im just saying in theory, there technically is no real "basis" for universal morality its more so based on the sum of your life experiences thus far

 

[Primalsplit]

what are those rules of morality?

or is it not so much the actual rules of morality but the rules of the framework for approaching a moral dilemma that you're talking about?

like the objective morality ur describing is inconceivable to be me bc its not like you can just say some thing equivalent to 1+1=2 in terms of morality. sure you can something like "murder is wrong", and then what always follows is a "yes, but"

also yea obviously people can do all kinds of shady shit, esp world leaders bc of Power, but im just asking 2 things:
1) Who decides/decided the framework for reasoning about morality?
2) is this framework so reasonable and thorough that any person who is conscious, rationally thinking, and engages in good faith will agree with it?

I do have a moral compass btw im not a relativist, but my goal is to get people to agree w me so we can come to a consensus, im just saying in theory, there technically is no real "basis" for universal morality its more so based on the sum of your life experiences thus far

Good points. I am not entirely sure but yes.

1) I suppose it's the sum of experiences the collective has accumulated. There wouldn't be a consensus if a lot of those didn't heavily overlap.
2)I suppose so.

Experiences are things that happen objectively. Drawing conclusion from experiences only is frowned upon, because it might be lacking a certain experience that counters it. And you also don't want a bunch of people drawing nitpicked conclusions from nitpicked events and applying them over a large amount of cases that exceeds the nitpicked situation they draw from. So drawing purely from a personal experience should bedrawn conclusions from, provided it is not regarded as the end all be all for everything.

Regarding the "murder is wrong but..." thing, the part that comes after the "but" would always depend on something basic as well. There is never a "murder is wrong 100%" but a "murder is wrong" if something even more critically important takes precedence. The most common example is "in self defense".

The things can get complicated if one tries to argue what constitutes self defense. For example: if it's self defense when you're starving and you killed someone while stealing food; whether or not. Then we would have to look at your options of acquiring food. If you did not work when you could, then that's on you. If you couldn't find work, then it's argued why you couldn't work.

The details and the way it is defended will vary of course, as well as how the result would be determined by authorities. Some, even wrongly concluded too. But none of this really determines that morality is relativistic itself.

Even animals have a sense of morality. It is far more primal than humanity itself.

 

[chicolate131]

Bounded rationality seems to suggest that humans are limited in processing the entirety of their future orientation and thus make the best decisions they can although struggling to get to the optimal solution so I would say that all humans are rational in that they try to adjust their time frame to the future the more you think of the future the more you optimize your rationality and are less constrained by the significance of bounded rationality.

thinking clearer and being more focused adjust to these as well. thinking deeply of where you want to be is a rational objective even though its rooted in subjectivity because we all have compositions of where we want to be in unique terms.

so with this being said i think it depends on how far someone is looking to attain something so motivation ambition etc. are the primary factors in becoming wise. wisdom and rationality are not the same thing but wisdom is a short term form of rationality that becomes inherent and crystallized in nature and becomes long term.

 

[chicolate131]

time is an important factor here. rational goals will only be successful with time management. i know youre not a big believer in time being the overall nature of our reality but in essence with time everything becomes rational as stated in your conversation with the AI. so maybe we can assume a position where time becomes powerful enough to allow us to see things as they are after it has passed.

i think rationality also is a facet of things that have symmetry. cause and effect is the basis of rationality and if you have a symmetric cause to your effect it becomes rational.

 

[registerfasterusing]

Bounded rationality seems to suggest that humans are limited in processing the entirety of their future orientation and thus make the best decisions they can although struggling to get to the optimal solution so I would say that all humans are rational in that they try to adjust their time frame to the future the more you think of the future the more you optimize your rationality and are less constrained by the significance of bounded rationality.

thinking clearer and being more focused adjust to these as well. thinking deeply of where you want to be is a rational objective even though its rooted in subjectivity because we all have compositions of where we want to be in unique terms.

so with this being said i think it depends on how far someone is looking to attain something so motivation ambition etc. are the primary factors in becoming wise. wisdom and rationality are not the same thing but wisdom is a short term form of rationality that becomes inherent and crystallized in nature and becomes long term.

I think there’s a risk in equating rationality to with future-oriented thinking. Rationality, especially in its Enlightenment form, assumes coherence, predictability, and optimization. But humans often act on contradiction, fantasy, or excess, all of which dont necessarily apply to the rational model. Bounded rationality doesn’t mean all humans are rational, it means they use shortcuts because they can’t be. As for wisdom, id argue it’s not a short-term form of rationality at all, it often attempts to embrace what rationality can’t explain. Sometimes, the wisest thing is to do nothing, or to act against interest.

 

[registerfasterusing]

time is an important factor here. rational goals will only be successful with time management. i know youre not a big believer in time being the overall nature of our reality but in essence with time everything becomes rational as stated in your conversation with the AI. so maybe we can assume a position where time becomes powerful enough to allow us to see things as they are after it has passed.

i think rationality also is a facet of things that have symmetry. cause and effect is the basis of rationality and if you have a symmetric cause to your effect it becomes rational.

time does present the illusion that things ‘make sense’ after the fact. However, history does not always reveal truth, it often just overwrites contradiction with narrative. Some things dont become rational with time, they are just buried and nullified. And symmetry might feel rational, but human life is built around asymmetry: between self and Other, desire and fulfillment, cause and excess. rationality tries to impose order on that. but its never perfect.

 

[chicolate131]

I think there’s a risk in equating rationality to with future-oriented thinking. Rationality, especially in its Enlightenment form, assumes coherence, predictability, and optimization. But humans often act on contradiction, fantasy, or excess, all of which dont necessarily apply to the rational model. Bounded rationality doesn’t mean all humans are rational, it means they use shortcuts because they can’t be. As for wisdom, id argue it’s not a short-term form of rationality at all, it often attempts to embrace what rationality can’t explain. Sometimes, the wisest thing is to do nothing, or to act against interest.

good points but the layering of rationality should encompass how driven the rational individual is to getting to a certain point. its like driving a car sometimes we know more about the destination than we do the drive or vice versa and so with that being said how do we employ truth and objectivity to matters where there are no continuations of previous goals.

not everything can be measured. if it is measurable it is rational to obtain the most optimal measurement. rationality only works in measurable things like an above user said its about calculations mainly.

also i would say that composites of things that are rational become wisdom like you said. it takes an extreme level of concentration on what the bigger picture is to get there. because the bigger picture often circulates through expansion and collapse of what we think the moment should look like as opposed to what the moment really is.

so perception dominates here. our physical perception is as important to this as the vivid imagination and the heuristics behind it.