Rationalization

You are talking about objective truth. Or the Truth with a capital t. And you are correct, which is why i am honestly puzzled by the english meaning of the word rationalization.

In my mother language the word makes more sense.
To rationalize is to break down something irrational until objective truth is found, until the irrational is validly explained through rationality and logic. Even if its an emotion it can be explained as such.

In english its the opposite. Rationalizing is simply an obfuscating, deflecting word, a synonym to “you are wrong” but without the burden to explain why or how. Just stating that the basis for the logic/argument is something irrational like a bias, preference, or emotion.
That is pointless.
The person doing the rationalization has to have a logic/argument which is valid, otherwise its not rational, logical or an argument. Its just a fart of emotions blurted out.

Also there is a way simpler method to all of this, rather than going with the pointless “rationalization” route. You debunk the proposed argument and thats that.
Pointing around at what the possible motifs for an argument is, is at its very best a complete red herring, at worst nothing more than an ad hominem. This is exactly how the other thread derailed. A bunch of people making assumptions about the atuthor’s person, motifs, character without contending with the argument. Its a slimy thing to do.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here but it doesn’t sound right. It might be however. It’s not an obfuscating word. It means that someone comes up after the fact with a reasoning (whether good or bad) for what they believe something or did something. One should use it with caution in a philosophy discussion if it is aimed at others. But it’s a perfectly useful clear term.

Here, it would generally be a mind-reading claim if you said to someone you are rationalizing when you say X. Because that would mean you think you know why they really do x or believe y and it’s not what they are saying.

It’s a description of a pretty common psychological process.

In the business world it can be much closer to the Hungarian meaning. To streamline, take out redundant parts and processes, make things more efficient

Ok, yup you got it and I agree. You really have to have evidence that x is rationalization. I think it could be used aimed at political parties or organization. - for example if you could show financial benefit that is not mentioned in relation to a policy or process.

1 Like

Yeah, reading back i should have said that labeling something as “rationalization” is justified if/when someone fails to put forward a valid argument for their biases, emotions, or whatever else it is they are attempting and failing to paint as rational.

However if they do manage to formulate a valid argument, then their motif for bringing said argument becomes secondary.
Responding to that with “you are just rationalizing” essentially turns around the table, shifting the word “rationalizing” from valid criticism, to an excuse to not engage with the argument.
At that point its nothing more than a deflection and/or personal attack.

Yes, well, I obviously made the disconnect simple and obvious for pedagogical effect in that example.

Again, the feebleness in this case is on purpose for illustrative reasons. But the real thing to notice here is that the aesthetic of the justificatiin is rational. The person is convinced, 100%, that their position is rationally rock solid.

Yes, i understand that the core issue in this version is that they ARE in fact irrational and that they believe themselves to be correct about it.

But who cares what they believe?
Whether you care, or dont care, you can only either way just engage their argument and correctly point out where they are wrong and why.
I.e.: Purple is an area on the color spectrum. Yes.
Coincidentally, its not the same area as blue, so no: The sky is not purple.

Now the scenario is completely different when they make a valid argument.
Lets say your grandparent hates the fact that your face is attached to your smart phone all the time and tells you to put it away cause it rots your brain, or it will screw with your sleep, or whatever.

The problem now is that they are both holding a position of bias and truth(/valid argument), because what they said is based on their own emotion of hating to see you screen locked, but at the same time, they are scientifically and objectively correct about it, because extended use of smart phones can do that to you.

What happens now?

No. That they believe themselves to be rational.

Quite a few english words, quotes, and phrases have been twisted or turned around to mean the opposite of their original intention or definition. For example,

Rationalise: attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate. But, as you have been pointing out, this definition was ‘turned around’ to also mean: attempt to ‘rationalise’ what could not be. “Those who go to war and kill children rationalise their wrongdoing”.

Although going to war and killing children could never ever be rational or rationalised, some people are able to do this, but again to themselves only. Obviously, what is rational and able to be rationalised is the behaviour that absolutely everyone agrees on. Again, the same applies to the word ‘justify’ and ‘justification’. They have been turned around to mean the opposite of what they once meant. There are numerous other words as quotes as well.

Argue: logical reason; reasoning out logically with others to find an agreed-upon solution or answer. However, that word has been turned around to mean the exact opposite as well. Argue: exchange opposing ideas in a heated or angry way; bicker or fight over different views or beliefs.

Quotes and phrases also have been ‘turned around’ to mean the opposite of their intended meaning. For example:

“Blood is thicker than water”: familial bonds will always be stronger than other relationships. This quote, however, once was,

“The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”: friends you CHOOSE are more important than the family you’re just born into.

Why so many words and phrases in english were ‘turned around’ to mean opposite things is because the “ruling class” of which the “english” were so dominant, is to fool and deceive “the others”. The “ruling class” were/are hell-bent on having full control and domination over “others”. The best way is to control through manipulation, domination, and conditioning. The changing of words and their meanings was the best way to gain control and domination over “others”, the “working class”, as this was the simplest and easiest way to make “others” slaves while still getting as much money out of them as well.

The word ‘phil-o-sophy’ once meant: love-of-wisdom. But the meaning of that word has been twisted and ‘turned around’ in many different ways to mean many different things, so that ‘now’ when it is used most people have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what another is actually meaning and saying when they use it. Some people use it in a way to mean, “What is your view or perspective of life?”, so that they can then ‘argue’, in the dispute, disagree, bicker, and fight way, as some people have been manipulated to see ‘life’, itself, as being a “winning or losing game”. Instead of just arguing; in the let us have a peaceful discussion to find out what we can logically reason together way. The reason is that the “ruling class”, of which the “english ones” became the most dominant worldwide, want to cause conflict and division among the “masses” to be better able to control and dominate them. If the “masses” are ‘arguing’ and fighting with each other, instead of ‘arguing’ and logically reasoning together, then the “masses” will just keep working harder and slaving, and just keep paying more taxes and penalties, against each other, instead of working together in unity and reasoning out, logically, that the “ruling class” have been manipulating and using them for all of this time.

I am unsure of what other language you use, but the definitions used in the english language have been so twisted and turned around, from the original intended usage, that the “masses” have been completely fooled, deceived, manipulated, and conditioned. Some people have been so fooled and deceived by hearing so often, “Money is the root of all evil”, that they actually believe that it is ‘money’, itself, that is ‘the root of all evil’.

The saying and quote was once: “The love of money is the root of all evil”. But, obviously, those who ended up being in the “ruling class”, the so-called ’ “royal” families ', politicians, and billionaires, who are obviously the ones with the most love-of-money, certainly do not want the “masses” looking at them and seeing just how greedy and ruthless they really are. They want the “masses” to ‘look at’ and hate each other instead. Those who come to have the ‘power of the masses’, which obviously they obtained because they are so selfish and greedy, have controlled and conditioned the “masses” to look at and see “each other” as “an other” who is out to take them and/or take their job.

The “ruling class” managed to do this by manipulating words to mean the opposite of what they actually once did, to keep the spotlight off of them and to cause and create more divide and conflict among ‘us’ people.

People have been taught, manipulated, to believe that if [whatever] can be ‘rationalised’ to them or a few only, then [that] is perfectly reasonable. Whereas, the Truth is the only thing/s that can be Truly rationalised are only the thing/s that absolutely everyone agrees with and accepts.

People go to work and jobs that they absolutely hate because they were conditioned and manipulated to believe that ‘they need money to live’. The reason these people believe what is Truly irrational and could never be logically rationalised is because the ones with most of the world’s money want ‘these people’ to keep working, ‘for the rich’, so that ‘the monetary rich’ can get ‘more richer’.

Some people, what is called, “rationalise to themselves” that they “have to go to work”, (believing that they could not live and survive if they did not), even though every part of them does not want to and even knows that it is a fruitless exercise. Like within all cults, these people have been manipulated and deceived, through the use of words and meaning, into doing things for the “leaders of the cult” without even thinking of questioning why they do what they do.

Again, all people have been manipulated to “rationalise” things, which are not ‘rational’ and cannot really be ‘rationalised’.

People do what is called “justify”, for example, the taking of money from others through the selling of products, goods or services and through taxes. But, again, they are only doing what has been wrongly called “justifying”. When what is being “justified” is only to a few, then this has been very Wrongly labelled as “justifying”. This allows people like the ‘monetary rich ones’ to do what is Wrong while they believe that it is all right and okay. Once more, the only things in Life that can be Truly ‘justified’ is ‘that’, which is Right and Just to all and everyone.

Everything else is NOT ‘justifiable’, but people have ‘turned the word around’ to mean that if one or a few can believe that they have “justified” something to themselves, then ‘it’ is “justifiable”.

The only argument that is worth expressing, looking at, and repeating are ‘sound and valid arguments’. Every other so-called “argument” is just an attempt to try to defend one’s own already held position, belief, or view, which obviously is not yet rational and cannot yet be logically reasoned nor rationalised.

See, when a sound and valid argument is formulated, then, by definition, there is not a single one who could refute it. Obviously, if an argument could be refuted, then it is not yet sound and valid.

But some things can actually be ‘rationalised’. They, however, are usually not the things most people ‘try to’ argue for or rationalise.

If some thing can be ‘rationalised’, then some might think that it would be better to express and share ‘that’, then to not to.

Also, if an argument is presented that is not (yet) sound and valid, then it does not need someone else to debunk it, it is actually self-refuting and so debunks itself anyway.

1 Like

If it is really a so-called, “perfectly useful clear term”, then what, exactly, is the ‘perfectly clear term’, precisely?

Because the word ‘rationalisation’ has two completely opposing definitions attached to it, the only way what is being ‘meant’, exactly, is to ask the writer/speaker, “Which definition are you using and what are you meaning, exactly?”

Until then, as can be clearly seen and proved throughout these philosophy forums is people just speaking “passed each other” without ever know what ‘the other’ was even actually meaning.

If one is ‘rationalising’, then it could be said that they would be better ‘applauded’ than ‘critised’.

For surely, if one has formulated a sound and valid argument (which obviously absolutely no one could rationally and logically disagree with and refute), then they have been ‘rational’ and ‘rationalising’. So, well done.

But, then again, when one uses the ‘rationalising’ word, they might be meaning, "You have rationalised, (to yourself only), what cannot be actually ‘rationalised’ to everyone.

So, once more, it always depends on what the one using the word ‘actually means’ (and/or what the one hearing/reading the same word is ‘actually interprets/infers’).

The main reason why just about every disagreement, dispute, and conflict occurs is just because of the ‘misunderstanding’ of the words beings used.

1 Like

A great question considering the irrefutable Fact that every belief could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or partly those things. But, as can be clearly seen throughout these forums the people in discussions care very, very, very much about ‘their beliefs’.

I really wish that this engagement is exactly what interlocutors would focus on only.

In regards to what, exactly?

Oh, and by the way, what the current “grandparents” are now what you call ‘hating’, might be exactly what “these grandparents” “grandparents” “hated” when the former were children and television was being introduced. The latter “grandparents” might have “hated” more seeing “their grandchildren” ‘locked to the screen’ of the tv.

In those days, it was claimed to also be “scientifically and objectively” correct that if you sat too close, things would happen to you, like, for example, “you will get square eyes”, because “extended use” of television watching can do that to you.

How quickly some people forget?

When books were being introduced to children, and reading by candlelight might well have been some “evil” or “bad” thing as well, and the “damaging effects” of doing this for “overtended use” could have also been claimed to be “scientifically or objectively correct” also.

A great deal of what is claimed to be “scientifically and/or objectively correct” is just one person or a few people’s perspective only, which they have also only “justified” or “rationalised” to themselves only.

Before anything can be claimed to be “scientifically or objectively correct” a few things need to be addressed and looked at first. Like, “What is actually being meant by each word being claimed?” For example, what does ‘extended use’ even mean?

1 Like

If one cannot ‘rationalise’ something in a way that everyone could agree and accept, then that one is not yet actually being ‘rational’, itself.

I like to define rationalization as reasoning without reference to reality. Or making reality fit your emotions.

To me, this makes things more confusing.

  1. What you are essentially saying here is, you define the word ‘rationalization’ as: reasoning without reference to reality, or, making reality fit your emotions. However, what I think you are trying to mean is, to you ‘rationalization’ is: reasoning without reference to reality, or, without trying to make reality fit your emotions. Is this last part what you were actually meaning?
  2. What would one reference if not ‘reality’, itself? And, if one was so-called “reasoning” without reference to ‘reality’, itself, then one could obviously so-call “reason” absolutely anything. No matter how truly abused, ridiculous, illogical, or irrational it was.
  3. What has one’s ‘emotions’ got to do with anything here? Also, how could one even try to fit ‘reality’, itself, with their ‘emotions’ anyway? For example, if one were to say, “At the current moment, I feel happy, or perplexed”, then what could one even possibly do that could and would make ‘reality’, itself, fit those ‘emotions’?
1 Like

Yes, it’s not good aimed at your discussion partner, unless somehow it is so obvious third parties would all agree. It’s ad hom/mindreading. Stay with the argument.

But it’s a great psychological concept. I think it is useful as a concept in that realm. And I have noticed this process in myself. I mean, I think it is very common. It’s not something to beat oneself up over. But once you know this happens, I think it’s a good way to self-knowledge to explore. Why can’t I stand on the actually reason I believe X or did X? Is it because suddenly my motives seem selfish or impure? Are they though? Or do I need to face something about myself here that isn’t easy. And so on.

1 Like

Of course they do. It’s how they get by.

1 Like

Rationalization is not a synonym for reasoning. It has a specific meaning: justifying a behavior, belief or decisions with seemingly logical, plausible explanations rather than acknowledging the true, often uncomfortable motives or reasons the person has that belief or did what they did. It serves to protect your ego, reduce cognitive dissonance, and shift blame away from yourself.

So, you believe X and then after that belief is present you come up with an explanation for why that is a good belief. But this explanation is not the reason you believe X. Perhaps you have a position on immigrants. You notice this and you justify the belief with an economic argument. You justification might be a great one, but it’s not why you have the position on immigrants you have.

I am not saying that this is the definition everyone should use, but it is the main, modern definition of the word. So, some people in the thread are looking at the word and thinking it means ‘reasoning’. Some people are using the modern, dictionary common usage meaning I wrote above. So, people are talking past each other.

“please excuse me”

Are you here suggesting or claiming that human beings could not exist if they did not believe particular things?

Not at all, but if people choose to believe to give their own existence further meaning, then leave them to it, is what I say.

Humans could not exist if they didn’t believe in each other, of that I am sure.

edit—inserted the word further.

1 Like

That’s how life began, after all. The universe believed super hard. Then blamo.

1 Like