The Twilight Of Reason
First, some relevant info.
Twilight
[quote=Wikipwedia]Owing to its (twilight's) distinctive quality, primarily the absence of shadows[/quote]
[quote=Some Book]During twilight stars of less brightness than the second magnitude are not visible to the naked eye.[/quote]
I've been meaning to put this idea up for discussion. I guess this as good a time as any. I'm the kind of person who has a fondness for the twilight (dawn/dusk) period of the day and always enjoy the cool light that defines it - its bright enough to see but thankfully we don't have to put up with the heat of the sun.
Recently, it dawned on me that during twilight, it's too bright to see stars and too dark to see shadows i.e. we're missing out on some things simply because the illumination is such.
Logic has been, on more than one occasion, analogized as light. My question, my worry, is whether the illumination it offers compares to that of twilight i.e. logic, in its current form, is either too bright or too dark with similar consequences - we fail to see certain aspects of reality.
Take religion for instance. It's, however much one objects to it, been a source of solace, hope, even truths to boot. It's now losing ground to reason that promotes a more skeptical attitude. On the flip side, reason in its current incarnation hasn't been able to make headway on many issues - the long list of unsolved problems in various disciplines is proof.
To sum it all up, do we need to let the night fall (turn off reason) in order to see the stars (the other facets of reality) and/or wait for the full brightness of day (reason in full bloom) to make progress in problem areas of humanity's knowledge?
Have a dekko here :point: PURRfectly Rational To Be IrRATional
Twilight
[quote=Wikipwedia]Owing to its (twilight's) distinctive quality, primarily the absence of shadows[/quote]
[quote=Some Book]During twilight stars of less brightness than the second magnitude are not visible to the naked eye.[/quote]
I've been meaning to put this idea up for discussion. I guess this as good a time as any. I'm the kind of person who has a fondness for the twilight (dawn/dusk) period of the day and always enjoy the cool light that defines it - its bright enough to see but thankfully we don't have to put up with the heat of the sun.
Recently, it dawned on me that during twilight, it's too bright to see stars and too dark to see shadows i.e. we're missing out on some things simply because the illumination is such.
Logic has been, on more than one occasion, analogized as light. My question, my worry, is whether the illumination it offers compares to that of twilight i.e. logic, in its current form, is either too bright or too dark with similar consequences - we fail to see certain aspects of reality.
Take religion for instance. It's, however much one objects to it, been a source of solace, hope, even truths to boot. It's now losing ground to reason that promotes a more skeptical attitude. On the flip side, reason in its current incarnation hasn't been able to make headway on many issues - the long list of unsolved problems in various disciplines is proof.
To sum it all up, do we need to let the night fall (turn off reason) in order to see the stars (the other facets of reality) and/or wait for the full brightness of day (reason in full bloom) to make progress in problem areas of humanity's knowledge?
Have a dekko here :point: PURRfectly Rational To Be IrRATional
Comments (53)
I had logged off once for tonight, but I just found this and found it to be a fascinating exploration. I think that it gives a really unusual metaphorical slant to the whole question of logic, and other ways of seeing. I do believe that a lot of people wish to see brighter pictures, realism and even superrealism.
We could ask if too much light is leading to some kind of distortion of vision. The truth may be hidden in the shadows, so it may be that we need to go into the depths of the twilight to see beyond the intensity of the glare of the light. It could be that rather than looking for the light beyond Plato's cave, we need to look more into subtle shadows themselves, to uncover hidden gems of insight and wisdom. I wonder whether the twilight may reveal contemplation, as the hidden aspect beyond the light of logic.
I edited my first attempt, a little bit.
[quote=James Randi]Expose every belief to the light of reason, discourse, facts, scientific observations; question everything, be sceptical because this is the only chance at life you will ever get.[/quote]
[quote=Louis D. Brandeis]If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.[/quote]
Is the analogy still "unusual"?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Irrationalism. Sorry for sounding like a broken record.
Quoting TheMadFool
Definition of "dawn": become evident to the mind; be perceived or understood. "the awful truth was beginning to dawn on him".
Is there something going on here that we should be concerned about?
I will think about it in the light of day( and perhaps again in the twilight).
ok.
The old rooster Freddy Zarathustra has something to crow at the twilit Moon:
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]HOW THE “TRUE WORLD” FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error:
1. The true world -- unattainable but for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolidation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian)
4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained, and being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning, The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism)
5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast: return of bon sens and cheer-fulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.
(Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.')[/quote]
(Emphasis bolded is mine.)
:death: :flower:
Not quite. Wombs and tombs are dark places, Fool, and light (reasoning) waxes and wanes by moving between them. One pauses to philosophize at "noon: moment of the briefest shadow" and then carries further this promethean fire in order to make (reflect) a path (life) by walking (thinking) through the maze.
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.[/quote]
Again ...
:death: :flower:
As has become customary for you insofar as I'm concerned, you've blown my mind...again. Keep it coming, keep it coming!
What do you make of my rather dangerous and yet intriguing suggestion to "turn off" reason, dim the light as it were, in order that we may see other sources of illumination, other ways/techniques/methods of getting to the truth? This is old news of course - religion (faith: to believe sans proof) - but because religion has lost all credibility in some circles, we should explore other rationality-independent avenues to knowledge, assuming such exist. It would be a whole lot of fun, no?
I thought my quoting Freddy's "Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity" would make the point, at least for me, (history AND lived-experience show) that more light (reason), not less (faith? woo? instinct?), engenders philosophical understanding. "The truth"? As Freddy wrote "... a Fable: the history of an Error". :fire:
:up: I won't pursue this matter further with you. You seem to have made up your mind and not without very good reasons for doing so. Thanks.
Quoting I like sushi
Or ,maybe I'm getting caught up in the metaphor.
***
I want to say that reason has limits, that philosophy necessitates reason, and so philosophy also has limits. However, I don't know that noting the limits of reason is really the same as twilight in your metaphor, because you seem to be indicating that there's something more to be known when there is no reason -- as if we must, in some sense, block out (or bracket?) reason to know whatever the night or dimmer stars represent in the metaphor.
But then is it really called knowing if it's unreasonable? Or something else?
Or, given that we're thinking about the subject at all, is the very thought really thinkable? Or are we just getting carried away with metaphors? After all, in Plato the light of reason doesn't bare any analogy to the sun, but is in relation to shadows that we perceive. We mistake the shadows for the forms, when the forms are actually behind the appearances, and when we turn to the light(do philosophy) we witness the forms. It's not an astronomical metaphor, as yours is.
What's your metaphor doing for you? What does it illuminate, or ask? What is the night, the small stars? Or is it all just a kind of something that you're not sure of?
Believe you me, there are highly reputed philosophers, logicians who've already made the first tentative steps in the direction I'm suggesting (irrationalism, dialetheism, paraconsistent logic, to name a few) but these are simply variations of older systems and thus suffer from some of the same "drawbacks" that ultimately render them ineffective for tasks they were meant for - to broaden the scope of logic in order to tackle more complex problems. This would qualify as a paradoxical maneuver in my book - both increasing and simultaneously decreasing the illumination logic provides - in my analogy, this amounts to a cleverly adjusting the illumination of logic to just the right level such that both shadows and stars can be seen. A sensible strategem - play it safe, why reinvent the wheel.
There are countless non/ir-rational paths that have been taken. Tell me where they've lead that the path of reason hasn't already passed by. Point out one of those dark paths that have gone farther / further than the lumen naturale. Isn't the goal to turn (metanoia) from the shadows on the wall and see that we can leave Plato's Cave (mystification) by following the sun (reasoning)?
Yes ...
It's the height of the gardening season here. I get up around 4.30 in the morning (as soon as it is bright enough to see) and start working in the garden and work until about 9 AM. Then, during the day, it's too hot for gardening. Late in the afternoon, around 5 and later, once the shadows start to fall, I start working again and so until 8.30 PM, when it's too dark to see.
Taking this is as my context, how am I supposed to understand the metaphor in the OP?
No it isn't. To not "make headway", the long list should stay the same size. If it's getting shorter, it's making headway. You can't discern a trajectory from a single position.
Gracias for introducing me to a new term, lumen naturale. Had I known this concept when I started the thread, I would've happily used it - metaphors like these are probably the low hanging fruit which those who came before should've already hit upon and subjected to thorough examination and for these reasons borrowed instead of laboriously rediscovered. Muchas gracias for edifying on the illustrious history of the metaphor (I read a 5 line account of it).
That out of the way, the same short article on lumen naturale contrasts it with lumen gratiae (supernatural light of grace) and lumen fidei (divine revelation). These are exactly the kinds of lumen (light) that I'm suggesting deserve a second look, a second pass and not because they're feeling slighted or anything but because we might've dropped the ball by declaring them a total loss. You know how it is no? Junk can sometimes hold treasures of incalculable value.
However, lumen gratiae and lumen fidei were, per my analogy, two of probably many other stars that were visible in darkness of reason i.e. many others are out there, waiting to be be discovered by those who persevere in their search for such stars, the blessings of Fortuna will be at a premium.
I can see the problem which you identify with the lack of logic. I like the "Madfool's thread, but we do have to be careful that we don't overthrow the path of reason, because we need it to help us make sense of so much in life. We can cope with a bit of twilight, but if it gets too dark, we will need a torch, or some candles, to try and make some way forward, or else we may stumble and fall.
Will be back though...
I have thought about your idea, and what I think is that logic is extremely important, but, on the other hand, if feeling and intuition are left out, any philosophy will be rather inadequate. Perhaps, the twilight vision will ensure that the heat of the sunlight does not burn these aspects of truth to the point where they are overlooked completely.
To also interject a Nietzsche quote (who indeed seems oddly apt as a dance partner in this discussion:
“Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decoration […]; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor […]. Yet we still do not know where the drive to truth comes from, for so far we have only heard about the obligation to be truthful which society imposes in order to exist"
What we call reason is also none other than a set of rules with which we play the game of world illumination (or world construction if you will). Reason is much more than logic, logic is formal and empty, but reason is substantial. It tells us what is reasonable, which perspectives should be respected and should be denied. Now the world view that is commonly known as that of reason or 'enlightenment', is called into question thee days. Especially from the point of view of the environment, new idols and markers of reason are erected. We have discussions to give legal rights to trees for instance, we view the world as one organism and gradually we turn to the body as the locus of 'thought'. Even the argument is not safe in the age of identity politics. I am right or wrong dependent on who I am. Those notions notion soon will become 'reasonable' over time, through social change. So yes, we are in the twilight of reason, but not in the way that you intend it. Reason has become old fashioned and trite. Zarathustra is now part of the pantheon. The future men to whom he talked are alive now. They are todays millennials and they will invert all values, just like Nietzsche commanded them to do.
(I thin they finally turned me into a sociiologist instead of a philosopher :gasp: :scream:
Sort of. It's surely true that there are those who are skeptical of religion. But they are rarely skeptical of the "reason" they have replaced it with.
And I must admit that when reading the posts of proof and also the rest given here - I do not know even what to add.
I find myself speechless (oh, when did that EVER happen??) because of the notions, the threads given - the inputs --- I cannot really do other than to second these and...
What should I add more than: -----------
must really reflect on this, and then, when I come back someone else has written something more that gave me something more to think about.
I feel home here.
Anyone have a couch for me?
:love:
Reason is skepsis, not doxa. Reasoning is a (relective) skill, not a belief or myth or ritual like religion; and, therefore, 'reason doubting reason' amounts to a performative contradiction (Descartes). As Camus says, reasoning may be inadequate but it is also indispensable. Religion, however, can be dispensed with (Hitchen's Razor).
Quoting TheMadFool
Reminds me of the gambler's fallacy. On the ceilings of some old casinos, like angels in a cathedral, they still paint stars. :sparkle:
Thank (y)our lucky stars! :rofl: This is extremely intriguing in a certain sense, don't you agree? Stars as having something to do with luck and I mentioning how it might be necessary for the roll of the die to swing in our favor if we're to ever score (find a star that's been outshone by the sun) as it were, you know, hit a home run, make that discovery every other logician worth faer salt seems to be gunning for?
You do agree, of course, that chance has a major role to play in discoveries big and small, right? :point: List Of Discoveries Influenced By Chance. While my own life has been largely untainted by the vagaries of Fortuna, not that its turned out fabulous; au contraire, it's been, let's just say, a series of "unfortunate" (literally, I kid you not!) events. Mind the inconsistency but let it slide will you? Anyway, what I wanted to ask was, did you never experience chance events in your life? In other words, was every event in your life predictable to a tee? I'm guessing the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second question is "no". I maybe wrong of course but, hey, nobody's perfect, right?
Also, do you mind having a look at the following quote from an English Translation of the Tao Te Ching by Tolbert McCarroll:
[quote=Tao Te Ching]Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mysteries.[/quote]
Darkness? Darkness? A GATEWAY? What happened to lumen naturale (light of reason)?
One important point that I seem to have forgotten to make was that when we're comparing the rational to its alternatives, nonrational/irratonal/uber-rationals (you didn't think about this possibility did you?), you're not allowed to, it would be a circulus probando to, use rationality to judge the merits and demerits of alternatives to rationality. It would be like making the defendant in a court case the judge at his own trial. No fair!
Yes, of course, Feyerabend's rebut to Popper. To wit: "Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident." ~Mark Twain
"Mysteries" always beg questions and never answer them. Questions which can only be satisfied by "mysteries" are pseudo. "Faith in mysteries" is a gateway drug.
The list Fool provided does not at all state the fact of chance at all. All humans there mentioned were in fact focused on gettin and searching for what they in the end found - when you search you WILL find. Now what you find may not always be what you expected - but if it would have been completely by chance then the person would not even have been looking for something within the - realm - of what ever they found in the end.
The concept of stochastic variable (chance or luck) does in fact exist - but not the way we use the concepts we normally call chance or luck - because you cannot have the luck if you do not go to the casino and bet there... now can you?
And Feyerabned did not say what Twain said - but he said that when what we find does not fit with what we expected within science then we should have ad hoc theories to explain what we found - such idea was against the thoughts of Popper who did not permit such theories...
Anyways - I was determined not to stumble into the details where threads normally go - but hold on to the initial ideas conveyed --- and I will do so.
The question of how to deal with luck and necessity are rather crucial in Western philosophy. Necessity is represented by Ananke, the goddess of fate and she was generally feared by the Greeks and even by their Gods. In our language we still have the word fate which has a bad connotation (to seal one's fate). Our fate is to die, dust to dust, ashes to ashes. This has the connotation of, earth, the world below us. there is also a different concept, 'fortuna', Tyche in Greek relating to destiny. Destiny is akin to ananke or necessity but has a much more positive connotation. A destiny is a 'destination' a place to reach. This destination is generally associated with places 'higher'. You 'reach for the stars', 'the only way is up'. You are either higher or lower in the chain of command etc. What the stars in a casino do is to symbolize that through playing with fate; gambling, one may for a moment escape the clutches of necessity and acquire (a) fortune.
In this way actually reason and luck play an interesting double role. also reason is seen as a way to escape Ananke, to 'shape one's destiny'. Reason was actually man's destiny according to Aristotle, the source of its actualisation. Machiavelli thought that by using reason you could play with fate and jump from one thread of fate to another, keeping some sort of control. The difference between reason and luck is that one (reason) believes in self efficacy, the possibility of control and the other (luck) believes that one's destiny depends on outside intervention. This reason, the ability of control, or agency, is currently in twilight. Not that I think it should be though. The casino is the refuge for the unreasonable, both the man of reason and the man of luck shoot for the stars, but they believe in different weapons.
Very interesting! When we view world wars and events there - these contain both these elements - seemingly. But when you follow that thread you will always find someone doing something that will spark something else - so rather than luck or chance it is the human will I would say that initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity.
Then we agree that Fortuna must give us her blessings if we're to make a breakthrough? By the way, I thought,
[quote=proverb]Necessity is the mother of all inventions.[/quote]
Back to the main page, metaphorically speaking, to bring this discussion back on track. You've probably encountered this interesting phenomenon called Wisdom Of The Crowd - its got its own Wikipedia page, assuming Wikipedia is a reliable source - and if you haven't I offer it to you as a curiosity if that's as far as you're willing to run with it but take note that it's highly relevant to the issue of chance in epistemology and the gist of the OP as an exploration of alternatives to reason as ways of gaining knowledge. See vide infra:
[quote=Wikipedia]The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds[/quote]
Note the word "estimation", underlined for emphasis above . I know the classic experiment performed by Galton was quantitative (numerical) estimation/guessing but I'm sure we could extend the effect (wisdom of the crowd) to qualitative questions like, is idealism true or materialism true?, is there a soul or not?, you get the idea. If this doesn't quite match up to your views on the matter, we could always find a way to quantify such questions with the objective being to guess the probability each philosophical position being true/not. The fact that the wisdom of the crowd is, surprisingly, reliable and even deserving of the description accurate despite the fact that it doesn't involve any known logical system is precisely the kind of alternative pathways that bypass the rather rigid and even cumbersome logics I'm proposing we keep an eye out for. Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
Don't be too sure of that, 180 Proof and I don't mean that in a condescending way. You, yourself, once, quoted the following,
[quote=Hamlet]There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.[/quote]
Perhaps, I'm misremembering, Mandela effect of some kind, God knows.
I doubt that for two reasons, at least when you mean with will the everyday conception of free will. First, human will might be directed at a certain result, but there are so many factors that interfere that you cannot oversee the consequences of your actions. When I choose to go to the casino I might win or might lose. When I might win I may become happy, but I might also be robbed of it after I leave because someone saw I won. All these events are beyond my will. Secondly, my choices are to a large extent determined. I might be a gambler who loves the casino and goes or I might be the careful type who does not. I have not chosen my character.
Philosophically though, I think the point is to what this will is directed. When you say, 'in the end it is will', than you take a turn in the history of philosophy, will is opposed to reason, as Schopenhauer was opposed to Hegel. I do not disagree with you there. However, then the question would be what motivates this 'force of will'. Is it free decision making? That I doubt for the reasons laid out above, but other than that, there are many candidates, will to power, drive, love...
Quoting 180 Proof
Well, yes I have read and there is no such thing as what Twain stated at all. Quite the contrary Feyerabends anarchism is not even in a long shot something that will give at hand that he meant that chance is at work. His critique against Lakatos, and his own "dadaism" and "everything goes" is more of he sort that he deems science to be a project more or less the same as myths and that technique is like magic. But not chance...
In his efforts to refute Lakatos (much based on the thoughts of Kuhn whom he also refutes) he views Lakatos as a sort of anarchist an the criteria that should generate scientific programs are almost meaningless - but no chance here...
Feyerabend --- if you find it quote it - has not said what Twain said... as far as I remember.
yes - but without any doubt - if and only if - you actually go (an act of will) you have the chance to win or lose - if you do not go (also an act of will) you can never ever never win nor lose.
Well I either go or not go. Where does my will come in? You seem to hold to the following image: I want to go, than by conscious movement I set my body in motion and I go to the casino. However, there is not a little me within me, there is no 'soul' inside the machine of my body.
What determines whether you go or not? We are not completely free in those choices. In fact neurology considers them by and large predetermined. So whether I go is not necessarily a product of my own complete freedom.
What I would find interesting is to what extent we see 'reason' as influencing these choices, or indeed 'will'. The Mad Fool likes to dim reason in order to make other features visible. I find it an interesting proposal and I think it is exactly what we are doing now. 180 argues forcefully that reason should not be dimmed because there what we see when it is dimmed is distorted and obscure.
And I fully agree with you on this - this is why I said that "initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity".
I think that sometimes my english fails when I try to convey a thought properly...and now I marked where the emphasis is in that line of thought...
:wink:
Ohh I think it is fine. And anyway, I should be able to look through that. What intrigues me is what you hold to be that will that "initates and gives situations if opportunity" What is the initiative and what is the kind of opportunity that is provided? How is it determined? What content does the will add to the situation? As per Nietzsche 'will to power' for instance, or Spinoza's conatus, drive, or Sarter's 'nothingness' seemingly indicating absolute freedom. On that I wonder where you stand. (Those thinkers are just examples, not that I want to draw them into the conversation or quibble about them).
They should be, right? That's the whole point of Skepticism
[quote=Wikipedia]Skepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, Australian, and New Zealand English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma.[/quote]
A skeptic can't be a skeptic if fae has something fae doesn't doubt.
Quoting Tobias
You've picked up the scent. Magnifique! So, are you going to follow it or not or are you already on the trail?
Are you a condescending prick or merely masking your own insecurity?
Oops! Apologies if what I said was offensive. I'm fond of metaphors, that's all. I took it too far this time. Won't happen again. Promise!
I am also not sure I fully agree to what I wrote above myself. I put it in too stark terms. 'Regimes of truth' are social, as per Foucault, but I think there has to be some kind of common understanding, some laws of thought we refer to as 'reason'. I do think formal logic does not get us very far though because of its absence of any content. The challenge for me would than be to shed some light (sic) on what they are. The skeptical practice, yes, but what would that amount to, My ideas on the (post)modern demise of reason though still stands. I am not afraid of too much light, I am afraid we are burying it in rather obscurantist notions of blame and guilt.
Quoting Tobias
Alludes to "other ways" of seeing the world. I thought you had something specific in mind, that's all.
As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive.
Quoting TheMadFool
Nahh now you are being too modest again. :) That was not the intention of my remark. I think you like the exploration and so do I. Let's try. Do you know the books of Orhan Pamuk, "the Black Book" and "Foucault's Pendulum" of Umberto Eco?They are both excellent and both have similar theme, the reading into the world of meanings, which somehow relate and form a story. I think irrespective of the light of reason, that we are storytelling beings. Now that you prod me a bit, that other way of seeing might relate to the meaning which we invest in the word. Those are not 'reasonable', in the sense that they are disinterested an 'objective'. As a Dutch poet once said "we are Gods in the depths of our minds", with which he means that we all have the idea that the world is 'my story'.
Maybe those are the shadows you allude to. I do not think though they will ever be eradicated by the light. The "I" is a category of thought, maybe even a necessary condition for knowledge so it will not disappear. The stars in the casino also allude to this theme, they refer to 'us', "You are the stars", they say, affirming that which we hold ourselves to be in the depth of our minds. That way of seeing is as real as the scientific way since waking up from the illusion is impossible. So maybe there is a trail and you were right...
Awesome! A different side to the issue, one I hadn't thought of. I was focusing on logic, the discipline itself, and lost sight of the bigger picture, rationality/critical thinking. Missed the woods for the tress! That said, in my exchange with 180 Proof and Moliere, the philosophical movement known as irrationalism did come up.
Irrationalism, I suppose, includes our subjective side which, inter alia, manifests as storytelling with each person being the main character in faer own narrative - a story of my life as it were. It's odd, you know, how an individual's journey through life [faer experiences, faer's way of tackling situations/problems, faer's reactions (emotional and otherwise), faer's overall role in the grand scheme of things], though apparently limited by the subjectivity that inheres to it, also provides clues that permit an objective understanding of human nature (hopes, fears, values, etc.) as a whole. In all likelihood that's exactly what we're supposed to steer clear of - stick to a story's main goal, the subjective viewpoint it offers and refuse to take even one more step, fighting the temptation to assume an objective (rational) stance. I guess this can be viewed as suspensiom of rationality to the extent desirable and/or possible. Great!
Quoting 180 Proof
All I'm willing to say is, rationality may not be the only game in town! To look for and use alternatives to rationality (the pararational) is to be automatically labeled insane/idiotic but I feel this is a knee-jerk reaction - unthinking by its very nature and thus to be questioned and doubted to the fullest extent. Too, insanity/idiocy are relative to the times. To an egyptian in pharaonic times, planes and rockets would be madness/foolishness and yet to people of the 21st century, they're a routine affair. My point? Don't dismiss the pararational out of hand. In fact, it isn't me that's asking for, let's just say, a fairer trial for the pararational in the court of reason; it's reason itself, I acting as its mouthpiece, that's demanding this! Thinking pararationally, if and when possible supposing we're not doing it already, doesn't meaning we swing to the other extreme and completely abandon rationality/reason although I would recommend it if only to test the capabilities of the pararational. What could prove to be of greater value is a joint effort, the rational and the pararational as a complementary pair. We could get the best of both worlds. I'm daydreaming aren't I? :chin:
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." ~F.N.
:death: :flower:
:fire: :up: