I never misunderstood your claim, I simply didn't agree with it.
Sorry, but you clearly misunderstood and hence strawmanned my claim when you responded ""
So anything I do to fulfill a desire is a rational action? That's... optimistic."
I explained exactly how that was a misunderstanding - and that it missed the "coherent" caveat, and that I'd clarified even before you wrote that, that one can act irrationally in trying to fulfill a desire. But...TLDR...right? Don't you lose the right to claim an accurate understanding if you first strawman an argument, and then "TLDR" in response to the further explanation why your response was a strawman?
You took umbrage with that but subsequently admitted the point that "rational" in the given context wasn't universal but individual.
"Admitted?"
It was my point all along. Which...again...suggests you did not in fact care to understand what I argued.
From what I can see, you are confused about appeals to universal principles of reasoning, vs the fact when applied by individuals, you will get different prescriptions.
What is "rational" is based on universal
principles of reasoning - e.g. a coherent connection between our beliefs, desires and actions. That is essentially what it is to arrive at rational actions.
But the
specific actions that are reasonable will vary,
based on individual desires and goals. The coherent connection between your values, beliefs, desires may prescribe one action for you, but for my set of desires/beliefs, will prescribe a different action. Numerous examples already given.
Do you understand now...or disagree?
Circular conversations are sure-fire.
Once again, vague language does not - per your tagline - help with illumination.
If you are suggesting I'm engaging in circular reasoning, that's a strawman. You won't be able to point to any.
But if you suggest...what?...we keep circling back on the same thing? I'd disagree, insofar as you didn't really seem to understand my argument so clarification seems warranted.