The fallacy of rationality
The usual definition of “rationality” is “a reliance on logical reasoning to make decisions that are free of emotional and intuitional biases, which would undoubtedly be a normative concept.”
But rationality means reasoning. Emotions can be backed by reason, and due to the complexity of emotional functioning, emotions may not be considered strictly logical. Even if considered logical, is logic universal? There’s a field known as university logic, that studies the features common to all logical systems, hinting that there are different logical systems with uncommon features among each other.
In a situation where emotions cannot be discarded as irrational, the common definition of rationality doesn’t hold.
What is irrational?
Absolute randomness. In our computable causal universe, from fundamental principles, absolute randomness shouldn’t exist, not even in chaos. But considering the fact that a flaw is programmed into the fabric of the universe, manifestable through chaos, there is space for chance: hence the possibility for irrationality.
This gives the idea that the practice of rationality is an attempt to cling to control and escape from the unpredictable events of chance. Is this possible? Can rationality overcome chance and live to the height it promised?