Personal Traditions As A Rationalist

It is possible to instate personal traditions alone or with a close friend or spouse that are indeed traditions and yet are not irrational.  Eating a certain style of food on the same night each week is one possible example.  So is rewatching the same movie once a year or visiting the same location on the first day of every single month.  Very different from thinking that prison or flaying or crucifixion is just because of legal traditions, or from thinking that popularity or any length of time makes any kind of philosophical concept true, this can be done without holding to any fallacies or doing anything immoral.

The error rests in believing that having traditions is mandatory in itself or that people are justified in believing assumptions or falsities because of social norms, or in thinking that something that is true or morally good is true or good because it is traditional to believe or act as if it is the case.  A traditional belief or activity might even be genuinely valid, but how many people approve of it or how long it has been entrenched in a society are utterly irrelevant.  Something is true because it is true.  Something false is false even if the whole world pretends otherwise.  Rationalists can fully submit to reason, as is within everyone's grasp, and choose personal traditions that are not irrational.

In order to not be conducted irrationally, traditions both have to not require anything contrary to reason or morality on their own and also be pursued without any sort of delusions on the part of the participant.  The intentions and reasons for which someone does it are also a factor, rather than just whether the thing itself is permissible.  If it is not true that drinking water at precisely 4:02 PM is morally obligatory, then people are not in error by doing or not doing this.  If they think that the pairing of this action and timing is obligatory, then they would not be in alignment with reality.  

Likewise, if making assumptions is considered rational or something evil is practiced and perceived to be good, then all who believe it, as used to it as they might be, are irrationalistic.  Traditions are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the nature of reality that does not depend on what people think, say, or pursue.  This is why someone is free to choose personal traditions if they do not conflict with rationalism or moralism: anything else is not problematic in itself and thus preference or pragmatic goals are the only relevant factors.

This is not metaphysical/moral relativism.  Logical truths and moral obligations cannot vary based upon time, geography, preference, or awareness (or the lack thereof).  It is a reaction to the logically necessary fact that all individuals are free to do anything that does not contradict reason and morality.  There is no irrationality if no untruth is believed and no assumption is made.  There could be no sin where there is no obligation that has been violated.  Rationalists can partake in certain arbitrary norms with non-rationalists or create their own personal rhythms all without being on the wrong side of reality like non-rationalists would be, as slaves to assumptions and in ignorance or denial of reason's real nature, if they did the exact same things.