Well, Data, it's like this. Irrational means not endowed with reason. But I felt that you would dislike the word "irrational" anyway, and question its appropriateness. So I looked it up, confirmed what I thought, and used it. Your motive for questioning the word was itself irrational. So I guess I should not call you Data.

Don't be offended at the Star Trek reference. I've grown accustomed to your constant disagreement. It's almost like hearing the ocean at night.

I suppose they are irrational then. At least according to the dictionary. But the dictionary is not some divine authority. It's a guess at consensus. It's these abstract words and their all-too-various application that demonstrate real-world superiority of rhetoric to logic. The sophist has the advantage of knowing he's full of s***.

Hume said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". What he meant is that after reason has told us which choices there are, what the consequences of each choice are likely to be, and what means we have to take, after that, we still have to make the choice, and that choice is not one of reason, but one of passion. What choice we make after reason has done it work, is not one of reason. Not that it is irrational, as you say, because choice is neither rational nor irrational. It is non-rational.

What he said. .-.-.-.

I posted the definition for you.

I know you don't understand me. It amuses me, finally. It's not like I cooked up this brew myself. Rorty, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Spengler, Bacon, Hobbes.
Those are my influences. What are yours, if you are willing to say?

Who are your favorite philosophers?

What who said about what?.

It is a common expression that means that I agree with what you said.

Let's have a logical thought experiment and see what it tells us.

Or, as Jigsaw says, "Let's play a game."

A new virus has been engineered by a vengeful group of lunatics bent on saving the planet, and, apparently, with a grudge against you personally.

The virus is highly contagious, and has been engineered to be transmissible through any and all vectors. The creators of the virus predict that 80% of the people who are exposed to the virus will become infected.

The virus is non-lethal, but will, however, render 60-80% of its hosts utterly and permanently sterile.

A three year old child and its mother have been infected with this virus and placed in an airtight 4 foot by 4 foot steel box in a crowded park. You can see them through a small portal in the side of the box.

On the box, there is a timer. At 5:00 p.m. the timer will trigger a number of blowtorches that will incinerate all traces of the virus in the box. There are no other existing traces of the virus anywhere else, and all the notes on its creation are in the box. In other words, when the contents of the box are incinerated there will be no more threat, ever, of this particular virus. Unfortunately the mother and child will also be incinerated in this process.

There are two buttons on the box, one marked "OPEN" the other marked "SHOOT".

If you press the button marked "OPEN", the following will occur: the blowtorches will deactivate; the lid of the box will open and a series of nozzles will begin spraying a fine mist of virus contaminated water into the breeze; a panel will open and free the mother and child.

If you press the button marked "SHOOT" a member of the lunatic group on the roof of a nearby building with a sniper rifle will kill you, quickly and cleanly. He will not miss. Also, when you push the "SHOOT" button, a vapor will be released into the box that utterly neutralizes the virus in the child and in the tanks of virus-contaminated water. There will be no further danger from this virus whatsoever. The box will then open, and the mother and child will released completely unharmed.

You have been given all of the information above, and you are at least 95% sure this is not a hoax.

You are standing next to the box and you can read the display on the timer.

It is now 4:57 p.m.

sorry-
i didnt mention it, but i believe i used both logic and emotion to reach those conclusions. i like to think i try to balance them rather than favor one over the other all the time, but it is hard to be objective about things like that. using both would make the best moral judgments i believe.

i thought emotions were feelings...

ok then...what he said...