I'm looking for any definite answer, because I'm not sure that there is one.
A couple of stray thoughts on the matter: 1) Logic, which is part of rationality, may at first seem completely objective. A + B = C, no matter who you are. Of course, it is generally recognised that each of us has our own perspective shaped by individual psychology and culture, so logic in principle is objective but in practice obviously isn't. But, something that really interests me is that what we call logic may in fact not necessarily be logical at all. Technically there is no real way of proving that logic actually works - that a logical argument necessarily makes sense. The thing is, you can't prove the logical nature of logic itself by means of logic. Maddening. (Actually, Logicomix is a fun read about Bertrand Russell's quest to discover the immutable foundations of logic). You can't use any mode of knowing to prove itself, since any such mode necessarily rests on particular axioms. For example, you can't scientifically investigate the veracity of science, because science assumes that it already possesses that veracity. (Of course, I'm not trying to say here that logic and science are useless - far from it. But they're not 'objective', specifically in the sense that they are built on certain axioms.) 1.1) Actually what I really think about is the fact that rationality seems rational in a fundamental way, but there's no rational basis for this. 2) More and more I think about the difference between a rational belief and a rationalised belief. I might believe something that is completely rational without having ever actually reasoned its rational nature myself. It's the gap between a priori and a posteriori. Or something. I mean, I can believe that taking cold showers is good for you without actually understanding why - like if I was raised with that belief, and have simply accepted it all my life. 3) Logic, as I said, is only a part of rationality. By itself it's pretty useless, since you can construct logical arguments that have no actual application to reality or, indeed, that are entirely untrue. Apologies if these thoughts seem disorganised or... irrational.
I think the reason I posed the question to begin with was because I'm so obsessed with the idea of absolutes (and where a lot of my often times controversial thoughts come from). I want to believe that there are absolutes, but the more and more I think about it, the more it seems that there aren't any absolutes except "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes." Since that contradicts itself, at least one absolute exists. Perhaps there's an interesting yin and yang apparent here where, as you said, "you can't prove the logical nature of logic itself by means of logic.) To be continued in thought...
Ok, I'll be that guy. No, at least not entirely. There are things most everyone will agree are irrational, for example going off looking for the edge of the earth, or looking for an analytic solution to the general quintic. Since there are things (almost) all of us consider irrational, rationality must be at least intersubjective. If I believe the earth to be flat, and so that there is an edge of the earth to be found, I may think I am rational in going looking for it, but I am wrong; I should know better.
But to you, it's rational. Imagine that you believed it so deeply you were willing to kill for that belief. Or, travel around the world to find the edge. Just because you should know better doesn't mean you do. Thinking about this is definitely a mental exersize.
A valid point. Is death then the determiner of what is rational and what isn't?
Yep, my immediate thought on the question as well.
Interesting how in agreement, for the moment, the Hubski Philosphical Society is. Anyone out there familiar with the "perception check"? Maybe I'll blog on your question BLOB_CASTLE.hell, reality is subjective
Regarding perception, the sooner we realize that what we take in through our senses (our perception), and what we think these perceptions mean (our interpretations) are all subjective -- that we could have perceived other aspects of a phenomena and could have interpreted it differently -- the sooner we realize that, the fewer conflicts and misunderstandings will occur.
Hmm, very very interesting point. I'll be mulling over that for a while. I'd be honored if you did!
I realized that I have already blogged on the question of the subjectivity of rationality. Here, for example, and here, where I wrote "I asked a physicist friend of mine the same question. His first answer was that he was certain of nothing, but he later corrected himself saying that he was certain of things in proportion to the evidence available." and other places. I interpret your question: "Is rationality subjective?" to actually be the question -- what can I know for certain? what can I believe? As you say above I want to believe that there are absolutes
All of these is leading me to believe that there is nothing I can ever know for certain, which is something I suppose I already did know.
Definitely. All "objectivity" is subjective.
It is subjective because 1) we look at phenomena and experience through the lens of our culture and the constraints of our language to describe it 2) While language is wonderful and necessary, it also forces us to think within its constructions... the way two five-finger hands probably led us to conceive of the decimal system. That's my subjective anwer. I imagine that if one studies logic, you might be able to construct a logical, rational argument without subjectivity. What do the rest of the Hubski Philosphical Society think?