Question of the day:

It seems you got that partner as your wife. 😊

@Ab I do!

Nowadays, it a rare personality as in today's world every one is creating their own login and think it's true.

@Ab Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the world today is necessarily less rational than the world of the past, even when looking to a few decades ago. I would say that reason has been fluctuating wildly for the past 120 years or so; but whereas on the surface of things, the world definitely seems driven by hysterical irrationality, I none-the-less think there is a very good case to say the overall trend has been in favor of an optimistic evaluation of the progress of reason. The 1800s was, undoubtedly, the century where rationality was at its pinnacle in human history; and, with that as a benchmark, the world has certainly become far less rational. Ironically, irrationality has spread in the West, but reason has increased in other nations at the same time--certainly not to any degree to match the height of the West, and in most places, not even to match the level of rationality in the West today. But even where some countries have fallen in terms of their commitment to reason, the world as a whole has embraced it to a large extent. But, in what ways has the West progressed in reason? Well, the United States has become a philosophical competition between two dominant groups: the Traditionalists and the Nihilists. There are others, yes, but these are the most influential and dominant. The Traditionalists are the religious right-wingers who advocate for rights, liberty, Capitalism, but also tradition and religion. The Nihilists are the Left-wingers who typically rebel against Capitalism, openly attack and scorn individual rights, advocate for Collectivism (especially Socialism), and generally reject values and standards as such. Thus, the war is most notably between values out of convention versus those who believe in the annihilation of values. Those who hold tradition as their moral absolute and those who hold the rejection of tradition as their moral absolute. Those who believe that reality is to be subjected to a divine being that nobody can witness or define versus those who believe that reality is whatever you experience, however you experience, having no absolutes or objective truth whatever. In other words, the Intrinsicists versus the Subjectivists. But, at the same time, religion has never played such a marginal, unimportant role in human history. Many of the Nihilists are such because they reject traditional mysticism. And, in this respect, we are beginning to see an important split in the political Left, wherein they are emerging as two distinct groups: the Nihilists (the far Left) and the semi-Objective realists (the moderate Left). On the Right, there is far less of a split. The Right is still fundamentally rooted in religious dogma; but here, too, we are seeing that more and more decisions are based in reason, not on religion. Fewer Republicans are presenting themselves as religious zealots, and fewer still act like one. Is the Legislator/government as a whole more irrational? No, I don't think so. There have been some pretty atrocious policies that have come out since the early 1900s, and compared to that, our politicians today are fairly moderate. But, at the same time, they are still very irrational. So, is the West becoming more irrational? Perhaps. It depends upon how you look at it. Perhaps, more honestly, we might say yes in some respects, and no in others. That being said, true rationality, or at least a strong commitment to rationality, has never been a very common trait. Perhaps even in the Age of Reason, it was not necessarily easy to find someone who was fully rational. And, perhaps, given the exuberance of rationality at the time, because there was far less contrast between the rational and irrational, it may have been even harder to distinguish which was which. In sum, rationality is an achievement of unfettered virtue, which very few attain. Reason, I hold, must always succeed in the long run. It may be unclear as to how long we must wait for reason to win a complete victory, but because, fundamentally, human beings are naturally inclined to seek out and be committed to truth, it becomes more and more inevitable that reason becomes the dominant force in society in-so-far as we never fully lose our history of the past. Once a basic, universal truth has been named, applied, tested, and tested again, it becomes far more difficult to ignore precisely what led to what when we look back throughout history. Reason presents itself as "proof in the pudding" that cannot, at least over enough time, be easily ignored or dismissed--at least not by any man or woman who wants to live--who wants to seek truth and apply it to one's own life--to defend it--to demand it. And whereas it may not be evident what principles have caused the results we desire at first, the results inspire new minds to discover and hold to those principles, which becomes more and more prevalent the more data one can look to as evidence. Thankfully, I have already found a person who, in all respects, I regard as the noblest of souls. I have not been with her, nor may I ever, nor would it ruin me if I never could be. If, for example, she ends up marrying a great guy and having a happy life, nothing would make me more satisfied than to see her live and thrive, even if I were never to become a part of that picture. It may sound strange, yes. But I am perfectly satisfied to take no significant role in her life. To know only that she is, and that she is who she is, is far enough for me. And, if not her, I hope to find someone that is her equal, even if not in exactly the same way. And if not, again, solitude is far from the worst of existences.