Helping people:

[jupiviv]

The first thing that strikes me about people who "help people" is that they are convinced that what they are doing is good, and that it's somehow significant in the overall struggle between good and evil. Moreover, they seem to think that they are somehow good people because of doing the work of helping people, and in the case of Christians, they think they will go to heaven because of it. This is proof enough that the whole endeavour of helping people is driven by the ego's desire for power, happiness and approval by others.

The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good. This is why the person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them, otherwise they couldn't possibly serve the purpose of being good. No one wants to help paedophiles, rapists and serial killers, because these people are evil and helping them would mean that we won't be called "good."

The person who is helped isn't helped for his own sake, but for the sake of something else. This is why the sight of people helping others is simultaneously a shameful and laughable sight, especially when there are many other people who need help. For example, when a single African baby is chosen amongst millions of other African babies to be the adopted child of some American couple. In these cases it is most clear how the label of helping people are used by so many to increase their own value. A truly good person in this situation won't be able to help anyone, because he would be being selfish if he helped just one of them.

In fact, a truly good person would cringe at the sight of anyone suffering, and would be ashamed of going near them. The distinction between oneself and someone else would be too clear in this person to show what is called "compassion". The impulse in this man would be to bring the suffering person up to his own level rather than bend down to sufferer's level and embrace them.

[Conservationist]

The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good..

In other words, it's marketing just like "kids under 5 eat free."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jupiviv, the rational and selfish elements of "reciprocal altruism" has been covered quite extensively in biology and game theory. Summarized, the "helping" of others as strategy for a group to prosper works very well. No questions asked, one is just driven to do it, perhaps encouraged by culture, by memes. How people justify their altruism is not so important and indeed mostly imaginary (ignorance, 'ego').

In fact, a truly good person would cringe at the sight of anyone suffering, and would be ashamed of going near them. The distinction between oneself and someone else would be too clear in this person to show what is called "compassion". The impulse in this man would be to bring the suffering person up to his own level rather than bend down to sufferer's level and embrace them.

This would need some more clarification. How could one ever bring up the "suffering person" to ones "own level" if one is ashamed of going near them? Throwing the Book from the distance? It seems to me these cases are very context specific. Sometime helping becomes the opposite, like maintaining distance between helper and helped, and other times even punishment or cruelty can help the needy to get out of their rut.

[cousinbasil]

The first thing that strikes me about people who "help people" is that they are convinced that what they are doing is good, and that it's somehow significant in the overall struggle between good and evil. Moreover, they seem to think that they are somehow good people because of doing the work of helping people, and in the case of Christians, they think they will go to heaven because of it. This is proof enough that the whole endeavour of helping people is driven by the ego's desire for power, happiness and approval by others.

This is proof that you think you know what other people are thinking. Imputing the motives of other people may have its usefulness, but it is hardly "proof enough" of much else.

But let's take a specific example. Say there is a motorist who is stuck on a patch of ice beside a road. I come along and see the predicament, and decide to heave my shoulder into the stranded vehicle and help get it on its way.
You say:

The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good. This is why the person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them

But how could I possibly know anything about the stuck driver except that he cannot get moving?

No one wants to help paedophiles, rapists and serial killers, because these people are evil and helping them would mean that we won't be called "good."

What is the purpose of looking at thing this way? Suppose I glimpsed into the window of the car and thought I recognized the driver from a police sketch of a possible pedophile in the area. I decide to halt a few feet away, pull out my cell phone, and dial 911. You are claiming I am merely gratifying my ego. But I believe I am merely doing the right and cautious thing. If it is the suspected pedophile in the stranded vehicle, I am helping to get him off the street. If it turns out it is not, the police might assist in getting him moving again. If I am also pleased with myself for assessing the situation wisely, why is that a bad thing?

The person who is helped isn't helped for his own sake, but for the sake of something else. This is why the sight of people helping others is simultaneously a shameful and laughable sight, especially when there are many other people who need help. For example, when a single African baby is chosen amongst millions of other African babies to be the adopted child of some American couple. In these cases it is most clear how the label of helping people are used by so many to increase their own value. A truly good person in this situation won't be able to help anyone, because he would be being selfish if he helped just one of them.

Again, we have an overabundance of free time if we are always assessing the motives of other people. I agree that it somehow seems shallow, vapid, and vain when Madonna or Angelina get their black babies. It seems as if they are doing it for the notoriety and so that the public should esteem them and their politically correct attitudes about race relations; otherwise, they would be adopting children closer to home - there are plenty of orphans to go around - and they would not be immediately handing them off to others they hire as their wet-nurses. But the broad brush strokes you are using to paint the adoption picture in general serve to illustrate how your own viewpoint may be limited.

Let us look closer at your reasoning. "... the sight of people helping others is simultaneously a shameful and laughable sight, especially when there are many other people who need help." Well, you should not feel shame when you see someone else doing a good deed. But you aren't saying that, are you? You are saying the person who is trying to help should be ashamed. Moreover, you are laughing at him. Why on earth should someone feel ashamed for helping someone else "especially" because there are people he is not helping? You - who are doing nothing - should feel nothing. That is apparently what you prefer - feeling nothing, and there is not the slightest thing wrong with that. But the moment you start laughing at someone who is trying to help, then you are doing something, and then you should feel something: you should feel shame.

By your reasoning, something like Doctors Without Borders should disband. Since they cannot help everybody in the world, they should help nobody. The very fact that they routinely use triage to mete out their assistance makes them laughably narcissistic.

In fact, a truly good person would cringe at the sight of anyone suffering, and would be ashamed of going near them. The distinction between oneself and someone else would be too clear in this person to show what is called "compassion". The impulse in this man would be to bring the suffering person up to his own level rather than bend down to sufferer's level and embrace them.

You are right, a truly good person does feel the inner cringe when he encounters suffering. But again, you are using the word shame. If, for instance, I have to walk past the same alcoholic sleeping in the gutter every day to get to work, I may cringe at the sight. But why in the world should I feel shame? All I have in my pocket is a ten-spot. If I gave it to the bum, he would undoubtedly stagger to the liquor store with it for a refill. So I step over him and his feces because I have a duty to perform - my job. I know I can do my job. I also know I cannot effectively help this man in any way. I lack the ability to "bring him up to my level." Bending down to his level to "embrace" him is inarguably pointless. But I am the same guy who helped the stranded motorist and anyone else when I could.

Just the other day I found myself in a mall parking lot with a dead car battery. I did not hesitate to begin asking other people for a jump. There were few uncomfortable refusals. This was expected because people are fearful in general. But before long I found a crusty old guy, a throwback to the time when people helped each other out instead of cringing or laughing or feeling ashamed or confused. I was with my sister-in-law and her two small children and she remarked, "That was really fast - and you probably made that guy's whole day." I am quite sure she was right. It seems win-win to me. Why again is this laughable...?

[Conservationist]

You are claiming I am merely gratifying my ego. But I believe I am merely doing the right and cautious thing.

Fallacy watch: he is speaking of your inner psychological motivations, where you are speaking of your social justification for that event.

Does altruism exist? Yes, among good people.

Does fake altruism exist? Yes, among bad people.

Most people are dishonest, disorganized, deceptive and delusional -- thus "bad."

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

[jupiviv]

Jupiviv, the rational and selfish elements of "reciprocal altruism" has been covered quite extensively in biology and game theory. Summarized, the "helping" of others as strategy for a group to prosper works very well. No questions asked, one is just driven to do it, perhaps encouraged by culture, by memes. How people justify their altruism is not so important and indeed mostly imaginary (ignorance, 'ego').

Are you saying here that it's OK to have a delusion if it works very well? I don't think that's true, because a delusion will cause harm in some way or another, and so does the ignorant altruism of "good" people. I think that's the reason why it's said that "no (falsely, egotistically motivated)good deed goes unpunished."

What people don't realise is that doing good requires wisdom first of all, and wisdom requires a complete sacrifice of the self. If you do good by giving a starving Indian family a kilo of rice, then they'll curse you after that kilo of rice finishes and they have to starve again.

In fact, a truly good person would cringe at the sight of anyone suffering, and would be ashamed of going near them. The distinction between oneself and someone else would be too clear in this person to show what is called "compassion". The impulse in this man would be to bring the suffering person up to his own level rather than bend down to sufferer's level and embrace them.

This would need some more clarification. How could one ever bring up the "suffering person" to ones "own level" if one is ashamed of going near them? Throwing the Book from the distance? It seems to me these cases are very context specific. Sometime helping becomes the opposite, like maintaining distance between helper and helped, and other times even punishment or cruelty can help the needy to get out of their rut.

What I'm saying is that trying to externally help the person causes shame(or more accurately, guilt) to a person who is conscious enough, since it is intruding on his individuality. I'm not being wholly literal, so I'm not talking about, say, a soldier with his guts hanging out being treated by a medic in a battlefield.

[cousinbasil]

Fallacy watch: he is speaking of your inner psychological motivations, where you are speaking of your social justification for that event.

Mickey Mouse watch: I hoped to point out in my post that he cannot possibly know my motivation and yet he might judge it to be laughable. Rather, I was trying to indicate thought processes which may go into a decision made at such a moment. Justification - social or otherwise - has nothing to do with it, except insofar as I may in the future have to justify my actions to someone. In the moment, I am assessing consequences of my decision, and trying to make the best possible decision. I am not solely concentrating on my motivations, or even doing so to any great extent. The reason I am not doing so is that I have been in similar situations before and have examined my motivations on those occasions and afterward to the extent that I can now focus on the situation, rather than only on myself.

Social consequences of one's actions can often be adverse - it is no basis upon which to make all of one's decisions. There is in fact a common saying that "no good deed goes unpunished," which I find is true often enough to explain and guarantee its longevity. The "punishment" is often societal precisely because society cannot be counted upon to understand an individual's actions under every circumstance.

[Conservationist]

There is in fact a common saying that "no good deed goes unpunished," which I find is true often enough to explain and guarantee its longevity.

Back to Plato:

A good man hides his good actions.

A bad man hides his bad actions.

Who looks better to the Crowd of voters?

[jupiviv]

@Cousinbasil, I think you should read what I wrote more carefully.

The first thing that strikes me about people who "help people" is that they are convinced that what they are doing is good, and that it's somehow significant in the overall struggle between good and evil. Moreover, they seem to think that they are somehow good people because of doing the work of helping people, and in the case of Christians, they think they will go to heaven because of it. This is proof enough that the whole endeavour of helping people is driven by the ego's desire for power, happiness and approval by others.

This is proof that you think you know what other people are thinking.

Yes, I do know what other people think, by looking at what they say and do, i.e, the effects of their thought. I'm not claiming to be a psychic. Similarly, you are claiming to know what I know, based on what I wrote. Also, I don't understand what you mean by this:

Imputing the motives of other people may have its usefulness, but it is hardly "proof enough" of much else.

The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good. This is why the person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them

But how could I possibly know anything about the stuck driver except that he cannot get moving?

I'm not talking about the struck driver, but your motives for helping him.

No one wants to help paedophiles, rapists and serial killers, because these people are evil and helping them would mean that we won't be called "good."

What is the purpose of looking at thing this way? Suppose I glimpsed into the window of the car and thought I recognized the driver from a police sketch of a possible pedophile in the area. I decide to halt a few feet away, pull out my cell phone, and dial 911. You are claiming I am merely gratifying my ego. But I believe I am merely doing the right and cautious thing. If it is the suspected pedophile in the stranded vehicle, I am helping to get him off the street. If it turns out it is not, the police might assist in getting him moving again. If I am also pleased with myself for assessing the situation wisely, why is that a bad thing?

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said in the quote. We are talking about completely different things.

I'll have to say the same thing for the rest of your post.

[cousinbasil]

There is in fact a common saying that "no good deed goes unpunished," which I find is true often enough to explain and guarantee its longevity.

Back to Plato:
A good man hides his good actions.
A bad man hides his bad actions.
Who looks better to the Crowd of voters?

I have never heard this quote but I appreciate it, Conservationist.

jupiviv: The first thing that strikes me about people who "help people" is that they are convinced that what they are doing is good, and that it's somehow significant in the overall struggle between good and evil.

cousinbasil: This is proof that you think you know what other people are thinking.

jupiviv: Yes, I do know what other people think, by looking at what they say and do, i.e, the effects of their thought. I'm not claiming to be a psychic. Similarly, you are claiming to know what I know, based on what I wrote.

Well it sounded as if you were not adding any quantifier, such as "some people who help people," or qualifier such as "those people who help others and brag about their actions." If you were speaking of people who issue some unrequested reasoning for their "good deeds" then I have no objection to what you were saying. Similarly, you cannot object to my objection on this basis, as I did have your statement to go by. I am not claiming to know what you know - I am commenting on what you have just said.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by this:

Imputing the motives of other people may have its usefulness, but it is hardly "proof enough" of much else.

Well, you said:

This is proof enough that the whole endeavor of helping people is driven by the ego's desire for power, happiness and approval by others.

You are thus neither qualifying nor quantifying your argument. You are making an unjustified inductive leap. Based on your awareness of the actions and words ("what they say and do") of some people who do good deeds, you are characterizing the motivation behind the "whole endeavor" of helping people. If we are to accept Plato's observation above that a good man hides his actions, then it is possible that you are not even aware of many instances of people helping other people.

jupiviv: The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good. This is why the person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them

cousinbasil: But how could I possibly know anything about the stuck driver except that he cannot get moving?

jupiviv: I'm not talking about the struck driver, but your motives for helping him.

Yes you are! You just got done saying the "person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them." In the case I gave you, the stuck driver is the person being helped. You are saying I have made an assumption about that person - his inherent goodness - or else I would not have tried to help him. I am saying rather that I have made no such assumption. I have only assumed he is a person who is stuck. I have no idea who he is or if he beats his wife or kicks his dog. It has no bearing on the situation. That is the whole point, jupiviv. I did concede that in the case I thought he might be a pedophile, my actions would be different.


You are assailing the motivations behind the actions of people who help other people. My point is that while I often tend to do the same thing, I try not to precisely because I do not know anyone else's real motivations, even if I think I can guess at them.

I am simply asking you what is the purpose of impugning other people's motivations for the "whole endeavor" of doing good deeds? When I find myself scoffing at other people's motives - which may seem purely self-serving, I remind myself that my hands are full enough concerning myself with my own motivations and trying to assess what the consequences of my actions might be.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Are you saying here that it's OK to have a delusion if it works very well? I don't think that's true, because a delusion will cause harm in some way or another, and so does the ignorant altruism of "good" people. I think that's the reason why it's said that "no (falsely, egotistically motivated)good deed goes unpunished."

The delusion I suggested is when someone thinks he knows why he's doing it, while he's just responding to larger programs as work. The larger program could be to strive for an improved environment to live in, one where trust in the willingness to help each other is enlarged. Some degree of egotism might be just the carrot here. So it's a matter or perspective if you call it "OK" or not. Sometimes it's just nature but it doesn't mean it's the only option for eternity.

What I'm saying is that trying to externally help the person causes shame(or more accurately, guilt) to a person who is conscious enough, since it is intruding on his individuality.

Indeed, when the mechanism of exchange is sabotaged, it only results in unbalanced, often angry, hateful reactions. Shame and guilt have often to do with a perceived upset of the balance.

[Conservationist]

I have never heard this quote but I appreciate it, Conservationist.

Just a quick clarification, because I did not make it clear -- that was not a quotation from Plato, but a paraphrase. I paraphrased for efficiency of reading and should have stated so.

[jupiviv]

Yes, I do know what other people think, by looking at what they say and do, i.e, the effects of their thought. I'm not claiming to be a psychic. Similarly, you are claiming to know what I know, based on what I wrote.

Well it sounded as if you were not adding any quantifier, such as "some people who help people," or qualifier such as "those people who help others and brag about their actions." If you were speaking of people who issue some unrequested reasoning for their "good deeds" then I have no objection to what you were saying. Similarly, you cannot object to my objection on this basis, as I did have your statement to go by.

I added no quantifier or qualifier because none was required. This applies to all people that "help people" whom I've experienced, except perhaps for me, Kevin Solway, David Quinn, and any other wise people who may exist. All that I said in the post can be summarised in one sentence - if a person is deluded, they can't help anyone. It'd be like the blind leading the blind.

I think it's reasonable to assume that when someone says "people" in a philosophical discussion, they mean most people, and not *absolutely all* people. It's like finding a planet with only two bacteria in it, and saying - "there is no life on this planet."

I am not claiming to know what you know - I am commenting on what you have just said.

If you know what I say, then you can deduce the way I think. That is exactly what I was doing with so-called altruistic people.

I'm not talking about the struck driver, but your motives for helping him.

Yes you are! You just got done saying the "person being helped must have some inherent quality of good in them."

I said that the helping person requires the helped person to have some inherent quality of good in them, or else they won't help them, because they would then not be "good". This is a markedly visible trait in all so-called altruists.

You are assailing the motivations behind the actions of people who help other people. My point is that while I often tend to do the same thing, I try not to precisely because I do not know anyone else's real motivations, even if I think I can guess at them.

You are assailing my motivation(of assailing the motivations of others) here. How do you know my motivations? I'm also guessing, but this guessing is based on what I've seen.

[Conservationist]

I said that the helping person requires the helped person to have some inherent quality of good in them, or else they won't help them, because they would then not be "good".

Sounds more like the formation of a gang than a realistic plan for human betterment.

[Tomas]

The deed of helping people is used as a means to an end, i.e, a means to the end of approval, self-satisfaction, or simply of being good.

Doing a good deed is not difficult, the difficulty is every day. -- Chairman Mao

[Luke Breuer]

All that I said in the post can be summarised in one sentence - if a person is deluded, they can't help anyone. It'd be like the blind leading the blind.

Unless delusion is binary across all of life, how is this sentence useful? Perhaps it would be wiser to say that being deluded in the area requiring help, or with respect to the personality of the person needing help, threatens to completely destroy any restorative power of the helping act? You would be surprised at how helpful a 10x10 grid of 128-bit black&white resolution can be in allowing someone who was formerly blind, to make use of photons. Indeed, the very idea of learning seems predicated upon the ability to become less blind.

If you know what I say, then you can deduce the way I think.

Would you be willing to flesh out the necessary and sufficient conditions for deducing how another mind thinks? I am assuming that you accept the proposition that other minds truly do exist, and that your mind is not a carbon-copy of others’. If this assumption is valid, then you would seem to be forced to approximately simulate the other mind, along certain dimensions, for said deduction. The fact that I tend to think very differently from many people has forced me to recognize the great variety in how people think—at least I haven’t been able to generalize all people’s modes of thought into a small linearly independent basis (while this is “mathy” terminology, it is precise in a useful way). Perhaps you have found something I have not?

I said that the helping person requires the helped person to have some inherent quality of good in them, or else they won't help them, because they would then not be "good".

If the helping of “bad” people makes them sufficiently “bad” so that they can see this and then react to it by heading toward “good”, then the ultimate effect of being “good” threatens to, well, be “good”. Have I missed something?

You are assailing my motivation(of assailing the motivations of others) here. How do you know my motivations? I'm also guessing, but this guessing is based on what I've seen.

Would you be willing to describe how you protect against the relevant cognitive biases when you attempt to infer (this seems to be a better word than “deduce”) others’ motivations? The scientific method would seem to be quite helpful here—especially in recording what you initially thought someone’s motivations were, so that there is no modification after-the-fact, except according to established protocol. (Such “established protocol” can help prevent one-off exceptions, forcing instead an ever-increasing level of consistency in one’s thought patterns.)

[Alex Jacob]

Tzedakah
Caritas

In this thread---abeit rather old---I am surprised the OP is couched in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. Right at the beginning there is a certain flaw: I do not think that the concept either of good or evil would have a place in Jupi's materialist-rationalist mind-frame.

[Small correction about 'Christians': a 'believing Christian', if he goes to Heaven, goes to Heaven strictly by Grace, or perhaps by 'caritas' (in the Greek sense, unearned or undeserved good fortune). In fact, (many) Christians rebel against the idea of 'earning your way to Heaven' by good works or good deeds. But, as for example in the Epistle of James, the 'faithful turn' must also be expressed in one's actions and choices in the world.]

I find it rather odd that the whole OP is situated in this polemic. To deal on the issue in strict rationalistic terms you could only avail yourself of 'reciprocal altruism' as mentioned by our Chiarissimo Professore Diebert.

It would seem that His Most Reverend Excellency Jupi is perhaps subconsciously or unsconsciously stuggling within the same paradigm he is struggling to free himself from...

I think if one sees oneself as existing in a chaotic universe with no underlying rhyme and reason, the whole idea of Tzedakah and Caritas is substantially undermined: to the point of absurdity. However, if one defines a world in which Divinity---invisible, omnipresent but unknown to a certain disposition of mind---is assumed to exist, and if in that assumption (faithfulness) one discovers that, indeed, 'it' does exist, one will see oneself as essentially a recipient of Grace (laxity, forgiveness, true caritas) and one who has been allowed to enter into a different---often radically so---relationship with Life and Phenomena.

At that point, one's whole being and existing within this Phenomenal System takes on another face: one might understand oneself guided to help someone else (to make it simple one can imagine just one person and not a multitide whom one 'helps'), and one might understand, through backward reflection, that one himself had been helped innumerable times before. Indeed, if all this 'help' were to suddenly be subtracted, in a significant sense one's whole self would collapse. Our very Selves have been constructed through human 'caritas'...

[jupiviv]

Perhaps it would be wiser to say that being deluded in the area requiring help, or with respect to the personality of the person needing help, threatens to completely destroy any restorative power of the helping act?

It depends on how you define "delusion". Anyone who isn't rational is deluded, in my book. But yes, a person who can do something can help other people who can't do that thing to do that thing. So if you define delusion as not being able to do something, then it is obviously possible for people who are deluded by my definition to help people e.g, an autotroph helps heterotrophs.

[jupiviv]

It would seem that His Most Reverend Excellency Jupi is perhaps subconsciously or unsconsciously stuggling within the same paradigm he is struggling to free himself from...

Wow...it almost seems that there is a sort of logic in that statement. A person who is struggling to free himself from something must also somehow be struggling within it!

[Luke Breuer]

It depends on how you define "delusion". Anyone who isn't rational is deluded, in my book.

Is rationality based on rationality all the way to the core? That is, are the most fundamental axioms of rationality, themselves rational? I think you’re playing with fire that may burn you by how you speak. Let me put it another way: is it exclusively rationality which manipulates and adds axioms to a formal system? If you say “yes”, I caution you to read about the discovery of the physical structure of benzene. I’m not sure the process of induction, nor intuition, is exclusively rational. I’m fairly certain that you use both. From what I can tell, you’ve reduced the term “deluded” to nigh-uselessness—at least when extreme rigor is applied.

[overmyhead]

The person who helps himself, helps himself for the sake of something else. The person who helps another, helps another for the sake of something else. Why should either be condemned?

Selfishness is judged to be bad only compared to an altruism which is judged to be good. It is perverted to claim that "altruism is bad because it is inseparable from selfishness": Why is altruism bad? Because it is selfishness, and selfishness is bad. Contrasted to what is selfishness bad? Altruism. The mistake is identical to the mistake of nihilism. Specifically, you reached the conclusion that a principle is invalid, and then applied to the conclusion that very principle, which must yield an invalid result. You have had an insight into the nature of dualities, but have taken it in the wrong direction.

Behind the thought "altruism is bad" will always be the desire to help people. It is a painful belief to hold. It has something in common with homophobia.

[Alex Jacob]

[Unfortunately for all of us the 'natural chemical family' to which Jupi is attached does not allow for the Mystic Oroboros. Processes of 'intuition' are manifestations of irrationality and are delusional.]

[jupiviv]

Is rationality based on rationality all the way to the core?

This is like asking - "is a cat based on cats to the core?" It's a meaningless question.

Let me put it another way: is it exclusively rationality which manipulates and adds axioms to a formal system? If you say “yes”, I caution you to read about the discovery of the physical structure of benzene.

To the degree the formal system itself is rational, yes. I don't see how the discovery of benzene's physical structure would constitute an axiom in a formal system, although even that discovery would be rational to the degree that the endeavour of trying to find out about benzene is rational.

I’m not sure the process of induction, nor intuition, is exclusively rational.

Inductive reasoning and intuition are only useful and valid to the degree that they are rational.

From what I can tell, you’ve reduced the term “deluded” to nigh-uselessness—at least when extreme rigor is applied.

It would of course be nigh-useless to someone who doesn't find rationality useful.

[cousinbasil]

I said that the helping person requires the helped person to have some inherent quality of good in them, or else they won't help them, because they would then not be "good".

I gave a counterexample to that earlier in this thread which still stands for an entire class of one person helping another. I'll give another since you summarily ignored the first one. If I see a motorist who has run out of gas and I have a five gallon spare can in my vehicle, I will give that person enough to get to the next gas station. I do not inquire into his character. His "goodness" fails to enter the picture in the slightest. Suppose it is raining and I just want to give him the gas and get out - has he been less helped than if I asked about his current moral standing? My reason for giving the gas might be as simple as putting myself in the other's shoes, maybe I was caught in similar circumstances one or twice, or maybe I just can feel his frustration and helplessness.

All that I said in the post can be summarized in one sentence - if a person is deluded, they can't help anyone. It'd be like the blind leading the blind.

To understand why this does not follow just consider the large picture. Most people are deluded to some degree and in some respects. You are saying this vast portion of humanity cannot help another person, almost by definition. Yet society consists of uncountable instances of ordinary people helping others or performing service for others just in the course of daily living. For example, a nurse helps people. Are you saying no nurse is deluded to any extent? Rationality itself is not even required for assistance to be offered, since most seeing eye dogs help people all the time, and not many can be called rational. Jup - you make these sweeping pronouncements and they often do not hold much water.

[Luke Breuer]

This is like asking - "is a cat based on cats to the core?" It's a meaningless question.

If you cannot say that it is rational to be rational, then you must either stop at a faith statement, or continue the discussion with something other than rationality. If you stop at a faith statement, you are much less able to claim superiority in any way other than what is allowed in your, apparently very limited, formal system of thought. But perhaps I have misunderstood you, so please don’t take the above as extending you ill will. I’m merely trying to get you to defend your views. :-)

To the degree the formal system itself is rational, yes. I don't see how the discovery of benzene's physical structure would constitute an axiom in a formal system, although even that discovery would be rational to the degree that the endeavour of trying to find out about benzene is rational.

Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot). This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds. This was 7 years after he had solved the problem of how carbon atoms could bond to up to four other atoms at the same time.

It is interesting to note that Karl Popper, in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, declines to discuss stage 2 of the hypothetico-deductive model: forming a hypothesis. I raise the claim that formulation of hypotheses might not be an exclusively rational act, and yet the result can be perfectly rational. If you were discussing Kekulé’s dream of a snake seizing its own tail with him, would you attempt to say it is “meaningless”, if he had not yet made the crucial connection?

I think you idolize reason, jupiviv. I don’t mean to say that reason is not important, but I do mean to say that one can take a good thing too far.

Inductive reasoning and intuition are only useful and valid to the degree that they are rational.

Why? Why is rationality queen? Be very careful that you do not assume the conclusion of your argument when you respond!

It would of course be nigh-useless to someone who doesn't find rationality useful.

This is a much weaker statement about rationality than you have made elsewhere in our exchanges.

If I see a motorist who has run out of gas and I have a five gallon spare can in my vehicle, I will give that person enough to get to the next gas station. I do not inquire into his character. His "goodness" fails to enter the picture in the slightest.

This has an interesting connection to often-misunderstood scripture, such as Ecclesiastes 11:1-2 and Matthew 6:3-4. (For the latter, you might note that the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right part of the body and vice versa; also note that the creative and logic centers tend to be in opposite spheres.) While Christians are called to be good stewards of their money, taking this too far would have them refusing to allow sun to shine or rain to fall on the wicked (Matthew 5:45).

Anyhow, I don’t know if you care about what Solomon or Jesus allegedly said, but perhaps someone does. :-|