Talk:Instrumental and value rationality

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Instrumental/strategic rationality

Is this the same concept as strategic rationality? If so, a redirect should be created.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental rationality and natural philosophy

The claim that "instrumental" rationality is covered under Natural Philosophy is not backed up. The word never appears there. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins in Critical theory

The concept doesn't start as late as with Habermas. It originates with Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and was specifically adapted for Critical Theory by Theodor W. Adorno in the 1947 Dialectic of Enlightenment. --79.193.40.12 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be a 'dual article'

If I read correctly, the second section is about rationality concerning measuring instruments in science. It's find to have a mention and a link, but there's apparently already another article called instrumentation that covers it. "Instrumental rationality" viewed from philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc., is already the substantial focus of the article and should be the formal focus as well. I hope to expand the substance also. Pax, groupuscule (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reference to instrumentalism

Sometime it would be useful to lay out the similarities and differences between these two. But at least readers should know that two bodies of scholars share a similar name.TBR-qed (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

propose rewriting to contrast with value rationality

I am planning to revise this article as I did for Instrumental action, by contrasting what Weber called Zweckrationalitat with what he called Wertrationalitat. I welcome comments on both projects.TBR-qed (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I'd query whether Rawls's reasonable/rational distinction simply replaces Weber's two kinds of practical rationality; Rawls's reasonableness seems to have at least as much to do with Weber's third category of orientation (omitted here), the affectual. Wikiain (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removing warning

I am removing the warning about citations, since my rewriting will provide them.TBR-qed (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

new title and content

I have renamed this page to reflect the addition of value content to instrumental content. I welcome commentary.TBR-qed (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

respond to guidelines

I have read the guidelines on tone, lead, and layout, and do not find any specific suggestions to improve what exists. I would welcome such specific suggestions.TBR-qed (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing tone/style warning

I find this appeal to an unidentified and unjustified criterion of proper style without merit.TBR-qed (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences need to be backed up by sources: "Rawls hoped that his theory of justice would generate a rational and reasonable "overlapping consensus.” Instead, it resulted in a double paradox. It failed his criterion of universal intuitive acceptance as an embodiment of justice, but he still continued to believe it." / "Neither expert in value rationality was able to convince the other with contaminated reason." --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Let's just start with the very first sentence: using phrases such as "we humans" isn't generally considered proper encyclopedic tone (please refer to the 2nd paragraph in the section I linked). This applies to the entire introduction. Then in the first two paragraphs under "Overview", there are a lot of vague claims without references: "Operations that reveal technical means are understood in heads or brains or minds. Spiritual intuitions that reveal moral ends are felt in hearts or guts or souls." - Are they? I think a significant fraction of people (including myself) would say that moral intuitions appear to them in their minds (I wouldn't know how to distinguish something that appears in my mind vs in my soul, if there is such a thing, anyway). With vague statements like these, it would be better to specify who actually made them, perhaps even quote them verbatim, as has been done nicely in the third paragraph for Max Weber's work. Otherwise this is just you saying stuff (WP:NOR). --88.74.14.172 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems ill-conceived

As an academic philosopher, I'm not sure what's going on in this article. Is it about a concept in Weber's and Adorno's work? If so, then that should be made clear in the lead. In that case, this isn't the place to go to discuss the instrumental rationality/reasoning about ends distinction as it applies to other philosophers (Rawls, Nozick, etc.). Alternatively, one might think that it's about the instrumental/final value distinction in general, not just as it appears in a few author's work. In that case, the article should cover a much wider range of sources, since Weber's and Adorno's views are pretty marginal for the field as it presently stands.64.64.117.139 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observation. I apologize for not finding it sooner.

When I started editing the article already existing, I assumed its title referred to the "distinction in general," as you put it. I attributed the title to Weber's definitions, which is why I quote them. From that point, I might have chosen many modern philosophers to show how the distinction is used. I chose instead to pick two outstanding philosophers who reached incompatible conclusions on its use, and two other scholars who rejected the use of both men.

I would appreciate you telling me in some detail why you find this approach ill-conceived.TBR-qed (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horkheimer

Horkheimer's concept of "instrumental reason" is a seminal concept in Continental philosophy and the main source of inspiration for Jürgen Habermas's concept of "communicative rationality" (another seminal concept in Continental circles). It is vital for the article to have a section on Horkheimer's ideas. Regarding general criticism of articles like this one, see also Talk:Instrumentalism/Archive 2#Original_synthesis. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a justification for this edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Separate parts of the body"??

"The two capacities seem to operate in separate parts of the body. Operations that reveal technical means are understood in heads or brains or minds. Spiritual intuitions that reveal moral ends are felt in hearts or guts or souls."

I'll delete this nonsense, if nobody has any complaints... 75.139.182.135 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Wikiain (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Induction & deduction

WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.

WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:

Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.

[David Hume], philosopher condemner.

[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.

[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.

[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.

[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.

Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.

Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.

[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.

[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.

Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential duplicate

Hi all - noticed a potential dupe at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_value-rational_action Cgoecknerwald (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually the two articles should be merged. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Two Entries to Avoid Duplication

These two definitions (instrumental and value rationality) are currently merged in two different entries, and they should be separated into two distinct yet connected definitions. These terms are complex enough to stand on their own; there is no rationally defensible reason to connect them.

That's it; keeping them connected in two entries only softens and dilutes the clarity provided by a free-standing definition.

It seems absurd and intentional that instrumental rationality cannot have its own definition. Instead, we get two entries combining the terms, which does not reflect good faith to make things clear.

I understand and appreciate that instrumental rationality (reason used as a means to an end) and value rationality (reason evaluating ends/values themselves) are inextricably connected because the legitimacy of the former depends on the ethical grounding provided by the latter. I also appreciate that there's a paradox in the fact that even value rationality can lead to contradictory conclusions about what ends are justifiable.

While exploring the philosophical connections and tensions between instrumental and value rationality is quite valuable, I am concerned that the "paradoxical nature" should not come at the expense of diluting the distinct importance of defining the nature of instrumental rationality.

In conclusion, I want to highlight what is going on here. This article is a battle of philosophies: one absolutely prioritizes deontological value commitments, and the other highlights consequentialist, pragmatic reasoning. So here, in this definition, there's a battle about unquestioned truths "contaminating" the latter.

So, in this context, there are editors who advocate for a kind of ethical absolutism - the belief that unconditional a priori moral laws or values, derived from pure reason alone, should reign supreme over contingent instrumental reasoning. Currently, the article conflates these concepts, and it needs to be revised to reflect a balanced distinction between them.

The goal is for deontological perspectives to participate in the discourse, not unilaterally dictate the shape of the article; if we allow this, we will end up with the two duplicate entries that we have now, and the two duplicate definitions will reflect the "deontological agenda."

We need balance here.

Edunoramus (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Article: Should Be Instrumental Reason

This article reads like someone's essay. Instrumental Reason has a long history in Western thought tracing as far back as Aristotle, and threading through Hobbes, Kant, and more recently game theory. Instrumental Reason should be situated in this broader intellectual tradition in the article, not some random concatenation of recent authors. 128.62.45.37 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]