One needs to define rationality before one may embark upon its advocacy, for the concept in itself is flawed and given to contradiction. Rationality functions on the assumption that a given thing is better or worse than another thing. Does it not then depend entirely on variable choice, which may itself be irrational? Take a conflict situation for example, say a civil war. Rationality of solution would depend upon perspective alone. If A can find the two-state settlement rational, B may find re-unification the brightest of ideas. Even so, if rationality is defined as something that 'logically creates a situation which is best for all involved', it depends upon the determination of what is good and what is not. Upon what is dependent the determination of the 'best situation'? Further irrationality? The preference of the individual answering the question? Dependant entirely on his or her location?
What then is Rationality? Nothing at all. Because even these logical statements linked may not arrive at a rationale.
What then is Rationality? Nothing at all. Because even these logical statements linked may not arrive at a rationale.
