Content deleted Content added
ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m Reverting possible vandalism by Opeoluwa25 to version by Roastedbeanz1. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (4285334) (Bot) |
Opeoluwa25 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 6:
'''Rationality''' is the [[Quality (philosophy)|quality]] of being guided by or based on [[reason]]. In this regard, a person [[Action (philosophy)|acts]] rationally if they have a good reason for what they do or a belief is rational if it is based on strong [[evidence]]. This quality can apply to an ability, as in a [[rational animal]], to a psychological [[process]], like [[Logical reasoning|reasoning]], to [[mental state]]s, such as [[belief]]s and [[intention]]s, or to [[person]]s who possess these other forms of rationality. A thing that lacks rationality is either ''arational'', if it is outside the domain of rational evaluation, or ''[[irrational]]'', if it belongs to this domain but does not fulfill its standards.
There are many discussions about the [[Essence|essential features]] shared by all forms of rationality. According to reason-responsiveness accounts, to be rational is to be responsive to reasons. For example, dark clouds are a reason for taking an [[Umbrella|umbrella,]] which is why it is rational for an agent to do so in response. An important rival to this approach are coherence-based accounts, which define rationality as internal coherence among the agent's mental states. Many rules of coherence have been suggested in this regard, for example, that one should not hold [[contradictory]] beliefs or that one should intend to do something if one believes that one should do it. Goal-based accounts characterize rationality in relation to goals, such as acquiring [[truth]] in the case of theoretical rationality. [[Internalism and externalism|Internalists]] believe that rationality depends only on the person's [[mind]]. Externalists contend that external factors may also be relevant. Debates about the [[normativity]] of rationality concern the question of whether one should always be rational. A further discussion is whether rationality requires that all beliefs be reviewed from scratch rather than trusting pre-existing beliefs.
Various types of rationality are discussed in the academic literature. The most influential distinction is between theoretical and practical rationality. Theoretical rationality concerns the rationality of beliefs. Rational beliefs are based on evidence that supports them. Practical rationality pertains primarily to actions. This includes certain mental states and events preceding actions, like intentions and [[Choice|decisions]]. In some cases, the two can conflict, as when practical rationality requires that one adopts an irrational belief. Another distinction is between ideal rationality, which demands that rational agents obey all the laws and implications of logic, and [[bounded rationality]], which takes into account that this is not always possible since the computational power of the human mind is too limited. Most academic discussions focus on the rationality of individuals. This contrasts with social or collective rationality, which pertains to collectives and their group beliefs and decisions.
| |||