Really, the best definition I can give for reason and rational is "using information we perceive to be true in order to perceive more things to be true."

The definitions are:
REASON: think, consider logically; support a claim with reasons, justify by giving reasons; argue, claim
RATIONALITY: quality of being intelligent, sensibleness

These are from Babylon, and it's interesting that they choose to define the word reason by using the word reason. I think we all have an intuitive idea of what these words mean. It is weighing the expected results of an action based on past trends and patterns to predict outcomes in order to choose the most preferrable one. I suppose when you really get down to it, we don't know anything for certain. We do have logical rules, however. We give a certain weight to these rules because they have never been shown to be broken. These rules are the guidelines for which we make these outcome predictions.
Really, the best definition I can give for reason and rational is "using information we perceive to be true in order to perceive more things to be true."

Interesting Quote from Wiki, that touches upon my questions...

Quality of Rationality

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

I agree: rationality is an ideal. I don't want to destroy this ideal by any means.

I think it's fair to say that "rationality is an ideal." Of course the word is often used for commendation of those we find persuasive....

I see what you mean. But this thread is about the definition of "rationality." I feel that rationality, for most, means persuading with and being persuaded by an ideal sort of persuasiveness, an ideal rhetoric. Whereas "rhetoric" used in the pejorative sense is used as an antonym for "rationality."

I think a spectrum view is preferable to a binary view. Some persuasion is more or less ideal in its means of persuasion according to our taste.

For me, rationality is not a separate thing than persuasion. It's a form of persuasion. A person can lay out their propositions and conclusions and still be doubted, for humans don't for the most part live on propositions and conclusions. You're quite welcome to your use of the word, of course, but for me it's too narrow of a use. I strive toward a more holistic understanding of human thought and behavior.

I do see what you mean though. I assure you. And I respect your use of the term.

As Samuel Johnson once said to someone with whom he was having a discussion: "I can give you an argument, but I cannot give you understanding".

It's a great quote. Samuel Johnson is a great man, even if kicking that rock didn't mean as much as he thought it did.

Idealism isn't my bag but rocks can be imaginary. I think it's human social interaction that makes idealism seem absurd. That we all "imagine" the same thing implies a trans-subjective "cause" of such imaginations.....

We can all kick rocks in our dreams, can't we?