Is rationality all there is?
I ask because despite its being so fervently touted as the sparkling jewel of philosophy there's so many ''issues'' that have not yielded the desired results. For example take ethics - logical analysis of the moral landscape has utterly failed in providing a satisfactory solution to its problems. Then there are so many (wikipedia has a long list) paradoxes that span the breadth of our knowledge framework - conundrums logic cannot handle.
Should we stubbornly continue to apply (or is it misapply) reason and logic to these problems? I think it's high time we looked at new avenues, new tools to apply to these problems. Who among us has the spark of creativity to unravel the truths hidden in these logic-resistant fields?
Should we stubbornly continue to apply (or is it misapply) reason and logic to these problems? I think it's high time we looked at new avenues, new tools to apply to these problems. Who among us has the spark of creativity to unravel the truths hidden in these logic-resistant fields?
Comments (149)
Second, could you provide the list you are referring to? I have a feeling a lot of what you call paradoxes are not logically paradoxes, but oddities that need to be explained with more knowledge.
What other "issues" have not yielded the "desired" results?
Results are results. If they aren't what you "desire" then maybe you should try to be more objective and understand that the results were never guaranteed to be desirable to the human species, or even life for that matter. So maybe that is why you don't see a "desirable" solution; because the knowledge acquired in other domains of investigation imply that there are no objective ethical rules. They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in.
Has rationality and logical analysis actually achieved anything at all?
Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
This assumption stays within the set of reasoning that the Mad Fool seems to be stepping outside of when he makes his argument against rationality being "all there is".
Quoting Harry Hindu
The same assumption here.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."
Rationality is kind of the cornerstone of philosophy, though. To me, this is an important distinction. I'm interested in philosophy, and philosophical ways of thinking, but I'm also interested in other ways of thinking, and I'm interested in the pursuit of meaning and truth (which don't always set squarely within philosophical bounds). I've been one to rail against rationality on this forum, but nowadays I'm not so concerned with that as I am with how to think properly. I'm not so concerned with whether the proper way to think is philosophical or not. To suggest that philosophy needs to begin to use different modes of thinking almost seems unessisary; what good is it to convince the analytics to be artists? Why make the logicians logotherapists? The harder task seems to be to convince everyone that every mode of thinking is equally valid (equal in the measure of value that each mode brings to the human experience; this doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchical set of thinking-modes).
Utterly failed?
That might be an overstatement... There are plenty of venerable moral and ethical solutions to many of our problems, especially in the modern world
Quoting TheMadFool
Paradoxes are fringe; which one cripples the utility of rationality?
Quoting TheMadFool
Some truths cannot be known, some problems cannot be solved, and some horizons can never be observed. If we ever find something that is more powerful than rationality, then every rational person will adopt it!
*Listens to The Rite of Spring*
...
:-O
In my view, it's misconceived to look at philosophy, as an academic discipline, as something where the goal is to provide answers or solutions in the sense of "final answers" that are going to have widespread consensus agreement, so that we're basically done with the project at that point.
I believe that entirely misses the point of philosophy. The value of philosophy is rather in its critical methodology, where conclusions are challenged, where assumptions are ferreted out and undermined, and so on. Doing this in perpetuity is the project of philosophy. Finding consensus solutions is not.
This isn't to suggest that individual philosophers shouldn't reach conclusions, shouldn't aim for figuring out answers in their view. Part of philosophy's methodology is reasoning to conclusions given particular premises, of course. But we stop doing philosophy when we all agree and say "Right then. That's that. Time for lunch--and a new career."
And of course many will disagree with what I say here. They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they didn't disagree.
Why do you think that? It was rationality applied to the question of whether it is ethical to own another human that ended the slave trade.
Surely that alone is enough to justify any area of inquiry.
Is challenging conclusions, individual philosophers reaching conclusions, and widespread disagreement really the end project of philosophy? What's the point?
I kind of already explained that. The value is the critical methodology. The idea of critical thinking, of examining assumptions we might be making, of examining whether we're committing logical fallacies or not, and so on. It's a tool. It's just like the value of a screwdriver isn't a completed item and then we're done. The value of a screwdriver is that we can screw things in and out with it. We want it to be able to keep performing those actions. It's a tool to use.
On the contrary, doesn't critical methodology point to value? Critical thinking needs a point, a telos. Otherwise there's no reason to think critically.
Quoting Terrapin Station
But what are we building?
Quoting Terrapin Station
In perpetuity? Or until the task is done?
You want the tool to be able to keep working as it does in perpetuity. It's not much of a tool otherwise. You're using it to build things, say, but the thing you build isn't itself the tool in question.
Maybe you don't value tools as tools. I don't know. I do, though.
What I mean is that critical thinking itself can't be the point. Critical thinking is the tool. What's the use of it?
One use of it is in identifying fallacies.
So, but why identify fallacies?
You're fine reasoning fallaciously? Or you have no idea why you wouldn't be fine with that to this point? I just want to check that before I explain it to you.
Oh, please explain away. Why wait for my permission?
You miss my point. Why should we identify fallacies?
When I say "I just want to check that before I explain it to you," I expect you to answer in good faith.
So you assume I'm not reading the words "explain it to you" sardonically?
What is "it" in that sentence?
I edited as you posted
If you're asking me a question such as "why identify fallacies" in the context of a conversation that I'd feel is worth having--and in good faith, I'd proceed as if that's what's going on--then I'd assume that you're asking non-sardonically, and that you're asking because you want me to explain something to you. If that's not what you're doing, then you should probably try proceeding in good faith, honestly, so that you're not playing games, etc. Or I'll not feel it's worth having a conversation with you.
Nope, I don't want you to explain anything to me, I want to have a discussion. If you're only looking to explain things to me, then I'll be sure to not respond to any more of your posts.
But, yes, I was asking you the question "why identify fallacies? Why is that a worthwhile thing to do?" You could at this point, respond to that question (which I asked several posts ago), or you could not do so. Your choice.
Okay, then the first guideline for participating in conversations with me is to not ask me a question as if you do want me to explain something to you.
>:O
So how would you like to proceed instead of asking me "why identify fallacies"? Go back to "One use of it is in identifying fallacies." Your response to that would instead be?
That's how I'd like to proceed.
Maybe try responding to me next time.
And you never answered this:
Quoting Noble Dust
The point of philosophy is achieving a better understanding of the world.
Why only better?
I hardly think working in contrast to rational processes will enable us to get any closer to solving the problem of consciousness. Exactly what did you have in mind? Choreograph a dance?
Quoting Noble Dust
Dostoyevski is my absolute favourite writer, his ability to describe the human condition, of the ordinary and unoriginal who are applauded for their esteemed qualities or the suffering and filth of genuine hearts is quite simply unmatched. “Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams.”
Nonsense. Really.
If you intend to make sense, or find a consensus, or make some argument of how things are, then you must be rational. If not, then whatever you say is meaningless and contradictory. WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? You mean that it is charming to be meaningless? Maybe so, but that itself is a rational statement - that to be charming, or silly is the term I would use, you can say 2+2=5. Being silly is only useful to get a laugh. Being rational is useful for pretty much everything you want to actually know.
But it does have sense, irrationality is indeed charming.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Sure, argument implies rationality but irrationality is not meaningless and contradictory, you're confusing it with fallacious reasoning.
I argue that arguing about irrationality is in itself irrational.
I'd say that it's silly.
Quoting Noblosh"Irrationality" and "fallacious reasoning" mean the same thing.
Quoting Noblosh
What do you mean? Any time that you make an argument for some state of affairs with the intent for others to agree, then you are being rational. In other words, anytime you make an argument for some state of affairs on an internet forum, with the intent for others to read and make sense of, you are being rational.
Yes, but not nonsensical.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, they don't, If I commit a fallacy then I'm misguided, not irrational.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Assessing accordingly to reason and logic something that doesn't conform to reason and logic, doesn't conform to reason and logic.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's not sufficient to make it rational, again, it must conform to reason and logic.
2+2=5 is nonsensical.
Quoting Noblosh
Let me make it simple. If you commit a logical fallacy you would effectively be illogical.
Quoting NobloshIn other words, when you aren't conforming to reason and logic, you are effectively useless and meaningless.
But there's no argument against that in this thread.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
Not true:
If you accept these particular definitions, you come to understand that one must conform to logic and reason in order to commit a logical fallacy which is called like that for this very reason. Then what's irrational is that which completely ignores logic and reason but that doesn't make it nonsensical because sense may still be derived from it.
Some would disagree. Thus the ''failure'' of reason in the field of morality.
It's something like physics. Isaac Newton's theory held out till Einstein came along and added a hogher degree of precision. Likewise the current version of our tool for analysis, logic as commonly understood, ''works'' in most cases. However there are failures (paradoxes etc.). Thus my question - what is our next step?
All I know is rationality has failed in some fields of philosophy. What other modes of thinking are available? I don't know. Personally, I'm leaning towards some form of intuitive mode of contemplation or even a higher form of rationality itself. Of what shape and form this alternative mode of thinking is is anyone's guess.
Depending on your stance on Christianity as a whole, you might be interested in Nikolai Berdyaev. He was a Russian existentialist/Christian/mystic philosopher during the early 20th century. The sorts of things you're saying here align with some of his views. The Meaning of the Creative Act, and The Divine and the Human are good starting points with him. He says, for instance, "Pure, undistorted truth burns up the world".
And to be clear, I do feel some solidarity with your post here, but I was just calling into question some of your assumptions, or at least the assumptions I thought I was reading into what you were saying.
I don't know what you mean here. I was saying "why should philosophy only achieve a 'better' understanding of the world, instead of achieving the understanding of the world?"
(Y)
One point that should be brought out is that 'scientific reason' and 'philosophical rationalism' are very different creatures. Or, put another way, the 'rationalist tradition' in philosophy is not at all based on the modern conception of reason, which tends to be instinctively scientific in approach.
Consider that ancient rationalist tradition, of which Aristotle's arguments for the First Mover would be an example. Much of Platonism is 'rationalist' in the sense that it believes that 'higher knowledge' is guided by an inherent reason that the soul had prior to birth and has since forgotten.
More recent rationalist philosophers include Spinoza and Liebniz.
But the point about rationalism in this sense is that it was heavily pre-occupied with ethics which it wished to derive from, or as, first principles in a metaphysical sense. Spinoza's Ethics was like that.
One of the strongest trends of modern philosophy generally is to undermine the possibility of a rationalistic ethics, in that traditional sense. This is laid out in Horkheimer's book, The Eclipse of Reason, which is worth being acquainted with. He (and other new left critics) talk of the 'instrumentalisation of reason', which reduces reason to a tool or an evolved adaption, which is altogether separated from the tradtiionalists vision of reason being connected to the underlying 'reason of the Universe'.
Dostoevsky was a literary fiction writer. You're interpreting his idea here philosophically, rather than in a literary way. What I meant when I brought up the quote is that I'm in agreement with Dostoevsky when he chooses to willfully rail against rationality as being the only source of truth, or the only understanding of reality. Another well known Dostoevsky quotes goes something along the lines of, 'If it was proved that Christ never existed, I'd rather go with Christ". The idea is that the sheer profundity of something like a backlash against rationality, or the profundity of divine Grace, are things that are sufficient for some men (men and women of great intellectual poise) to willfully throw away this modern reliance on rationality; to willfully rail against it; to rage against it. Indeed, to function, mentally, philosophically, within a rational realm doesn't avail itself to anything outside of rationality. So it's a self-defeating system that scrutinizes everything within it's own set of rules, without allowing for the possibility of new, or forgotten, or overlooked rules. In other words, rationality, strictly in the way you're using it, doesn't make room for creativity.
Maybe I exaggerated a tad. But you will agree morality has not yielded definitive answers on a rational foundation. In fact, I think moral precepts were formed on a completely different footing. When Moses brought with him the 10 commandments he did so by revelation, not by logic/reason. Similarly the Golden Rule (a pervasive motif in religion) seems to be an intuitive principle - we may analyse it rationally but its source is not based on logic.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Oddly, that would be a rational decision. Back to square one! Or not...
Well, if there's one word to describe my life, it's ''BIZARRE''. You don't know how reasonable ''chreograph a dance'' sounds to me. Also, the proposition doesn't sound as outlandish as you think - many mystical traditions have dance as a path to realization.
I fear you may be mistaken. Emancipation doesn't have a rational origin. It's got more to do with emotion. The anti-slavery movement wasn't based on rational arguments but on an appeal to love, pity, fairness.
I think the notion of fairness is older than logic. IMHO it arose among ancient cultures simply as a social attribute that enhances survival of the group.
...said every great philosopher, ever. ;)
The trouble with the grandiose statements of the final demise of philosophy is that it's always in bad faith - philosophy just keeps coming back, one way or another. The Greek skeptics failed to prevent metaphysical theorizing. Hume and the Scottish empiricists ended metaphysics - until Kant unintentionally revived it. The logical positivists wanted only scientific and logical claims to be meaningful, but were ultimately unsuccessful. Nowadays there's the rising tide of naive scientism, that fails to account for all the previous attempts of ending philosophy. We've been struggling with these problems for centuries, and we probably will continue to struggle for as long as the human race exists.
Heidegger said it best - as soon as we have one single interpretation that never changes, we cease to be genuine inquirers and become dogmatists. And Wittgenstein would have added that the failure to "finish" philosophy has nothing to do with the inadequacy of philosophical investigation but with the sheer complexity of philosophical questions. It shouldn't be a fault, it should be an opportunity - the stuff we're struggling with was the same stuff Plato struggled with.
Philosophy is, in my opinion, largely a socializing activity. In the past, to be a philosopher would have been similar to being a wine connoisseur or an art collector. They put in their own theories and critiqued those of their peers. Nowadays people want progress and results and forget that philosophy does not work like that. Solving a problem isn't always the goal - truth is the "goal", but what we're really doing is just having some fun and exchanging ideas. We're in no hurry and have no deadlines. "Finishing" philosophy takes all the fun away.
I understand you suggest that we do philosophy in some sort of ''game-mode'' - fun being a part of it. I also realize that the issues philosophy deals with are complex.
I was just wondering if rationality as a tool for philosophy has ''failed'' us. Should we not try out, for example, Taoist/Zen paradoxical thinking? Why not launch an all-out attack on our sensibilities and reason? Pressurize reason and expose the all-seeing, all-comprehending mind-eye, the true seat of all understanding.
As a former contemporary dancer, I can actually understand this, but I hardly think the philosophical world would. I can just imagine Chalmers with his leather jacket and colourful socks pirouetting to Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker in a lecture theatre as he swishes his hair about attempting to explain p-zombies.
The reason why morality has yet to be explained rationally is the elusive domain of conscience, love and the ever frightening external reality of which metaphysics itself has yet to demonstrate (hence consciousness). I think Kant has done a pretty good job rationalising morality.
And what is this bizarre you speak of? You're not sitting crossed legged and naked in a room full of mirrors, while on a laptop and eating porridge?
I think Kant created a moral abomination with his categorical imperative. Schopenhauer was right - Kant was thoroughly deluded in terms of morality. Morality isn't based on imperatives, but on compassion. There can be no rationalising morality.
That's nice, dear. And where do you think compassion is derived?
It's good you like feeling it man. Is it soft, warm, hot, tender, loving and mysterious this feelin'?
Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality?
In this context? Nah...
You have quite a dirty imagination. I wasn't making any sexual allusion there - just playing with words about the feeling of compassion itself. In fact, I had edited it and added stuff to it immediately, you should refresh the page.
Is that how you define compassion?
Really, though, you go from a philosophical description of compassion, to then making fun of your idea of an emotional compassion? What exactly are you even arguing? I was just butting in for fun, but...
It's so peachy the sound of it melts inside my ears sugar-coated babydoll!
Quoting TimeLine
I don't live in a metaphysical realm, but one does not cultivate compassion by saying "uhhh it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice". One cultivates compassion by fellow-feeling and meditation.
Quoting TimeLine
Well, to answer your question sweet pickle, I think you'd lose that bet ;)
Quoting TimeLine
Yes.
Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you.
Warm - It's like a warm feeling.
Hot - It's intense.
Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you.
Clear bunny bunny? (L)
Quoting Noble Dust
You do have a tendency to bring your butt in from time to time :P
Yup. Viz:
Quoting Agustino
So where exactly have you exemplified these characteristics of compassion here? I bring these arguments against you not out of any vendetta, but because you're one of the few on this forum who argues very intelligently from a theistic viewpoint, which is something I place a high value on, and yet you seem incapable of actually distilling any religious moral values into the way in which you interface with other people on this forum. You preach sublime moral views all day while subsequently lambasting those you argue against.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, sarcasm over, creepy crust. :s
Quoting Agustino
Define fellow-feeling?
Ok sour bunny ;) >:O
Quoting TimeLine
Fellow feeling means being able to identify with others - their pains, suffering, etc. Fellow feeling emerges out of a - like you like to say - a metaphysical realisation that we're all one - or better said, we emerge from the same ground of being, we have a common source.
Quoting Agustino
Okay so let's see.
Quoting Agustino
Did I press against anyone?
Quoting Agustino
I kept a nice and playful atmosphere.
Quoting Agustino
Definitely intense!
Quoting Agustino
I think I was quite gentle, would you disagree? Look at this:
Quoting Agustino
At least she can feel she's in pink flying unicorn lala land surrounded by hearts now no? :p >:O
Yeahhhh - I kept it entertaining so TimeLine wouldn't get bored, you know. What's bad (or lacking in compassion) about that? Blame her, she started the dear creepy crust thing (jk) >:O >:O
That entire post is a joke, right, and not a response to the problem of compassion? All I'm doing is waiting to see you actually practice compassion on this forum, that's all; it's simple.
Well yes, because I take the question to be a joke too. I don't think I've been lacking compassion towards TL in our interaction here. Why would you think I have?
Simply calling her "sour bunny" doesn't mean I lack compassion.
I'll let her respond. My comment was more general to this forum.
Softness? Warmth? Tenderness? Please quote posts of yours that exhibit these tendencies.
Sarcasm is underlying hostility disguised as humour, a way to ward off someone who has historically failed to 'get it'.
Quoting Agustino
This 'realisation' that emerges as a revolution of character is still a conduct of thought and thus not beyond but rather a result of the faculties of cognition. This identification with our conscience indicates a beginning of our autonomy and self-inhered responsibility to those in the external world where ethics becomes a practice. This practice becomes the categorical imperative; it is compassion with reason, not just some mystical gobbledegook where one can flout being compassionate without knowing why.
It's the result of the affective part of the soul, not of the thinking/rational part.
Quoting TimeLine
Again the bombastic words. Dear God in Heaven. You just love talking about autonomy, rational agents, etc. don't you?
Quoting TimeLine
Sorry but this is so false. Compassion is ultimately without reason - without a why. If you have a why for being compassionate, then you're not really compassionate, you're just utilitarian. You're just being compassionate for a reason. That's like loving your child because he brings you money :s
Thanks for admitting you are hostile :D (Y) >:O
Quoting Noblosh
Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical.
More nonsense. In your first sentence you say that I'm interpreting his idea philosophically (well, we are in a philosophical internet forum). Then in your second sentence you imply that he is using the phrase as a philosophical attack on rationality. Duh! Which is it?
Quoting Noble Dust
It sounds to me that the person who says and believes such a quote is simply upset that Christ doesn't exist and will believe in Christ anyway in order to rebel against the line of thinking that exposed the truth. This is a great example of being delusional - of believing in something in the face of all the logic and reason that informs you otherwise. Being delusional is equivalent to being illogical and nonsensical. Not only that but it does nothing to bring people together on something that they can agree on. What you seem to imply is that truth can be subjective. It isn't.
What a pitiful argument.
I believe in unicorns. Some would disagree. Thus the "failure" of reason in the the field of the existence of unicorns. :-}
What a fallacious scenario.
Kant' philosophy is about objective morality and compassion is merely a subjective experience irrelevant to our relations with the external domain and our role in ethical and moral duty. It does not dismiss the emotional subjectivity of the experience, on the contrary feelings of love and compassion therein epitomise this transformation or 'revolution' of thought and character, but it is just not one we can verify vis-a-vis the external world. That is, we cannot verify whether your feelings of compassion are in anyway morally relevant; you could rape someone, and then feel compassion by them by helping them put their clothes back on. Moral duty enables us to communicate and reciprocate moral laws over time that would prevent something like that, but in the end the subjectivity is wholly unique and dependent on the identification of ones own conscience that requires an autonomy.
Quoting Agustino
Hence the 'fail to get it' bit... :-}
Strawman.
The ''disagreement'' in moral issues not simply a matter of opinion. Each side claims to be right and reasonable despite some cases leading to contradictory conclusions. It's not just morality that has such logic-resistant problems. In contrast to the usual approach in dealing with such cases, which invariably consists of some form of truce between parties (let us agree to disagree?), I take a different path - is it logic that is faulty??
Each side claiming to be right is a matter of their opinion. The cases leading to contradictory conclusions is is a result of there being no objective moral code. Each person has their own goals that may come into conflict with another. The ultimate moral question comes down to which person has more rights to achieve their goals than others? I'd love to hear both the rational and irrational answer to that question.
I'd love to hear any question (and most questions that make sense are assembled in a logical and sensible way) that has been solved with irrationality - just one example. It seems to me that only nonsensical questions can be answered nonsensically, but then what use are those questions and answers?
I wasn't arguing about any of my statements but about:
Quoting Noble Dust
There's nothing nonsensical in this quote.
I think part of your answer lies in "desired results"
Rationality is a tool that we can use to plan, to decide a course of action. At its thinnest rationality is what is true or false. Desire/emotions gives rationality purpose, an inner dimensionality, desire and reason are inexorably enmeshed in our imagination. Reason without desire goes nowhere, desire moves reason in action.
Is there more than reason and desire...I think community makes us more than reason/desire. The narratives we tell ourselves, that we create, our history...art that drives us beyond the instrumental.
That's the problem.
Quoting TimeLine
Exactly! But don't take this as relativism, it's not. Moral values are absolute, but they pertain to the subject not the object.
Quoting TimeLine
Feelings of compassion are always morally relevant. Someone who - for instance - rapes someone and then feels sorry for the victim - has pangs of conscience - that person has a degree of moral consciousness left in him and can be redeemed. Don't forget Paul of Tarsus for example, who killed many hundreds of Christians before he redeemed himself through the grace of God. On the other hand the person who rapes someone and feels absolutely no compassion for the victim - that person is a son-of-a-bitch who deserves to burn in hell.
Morality can never be "verified" - except by God who knows what is in your heart. A person can live an outwardly perfect moral life - as verified by others - and yet be corrupt to the bone in the depths of his heart. Or he can be like me - a punk, motherf***er, son-of-a-bitch outwardly - and a compassionate person on the inside. External appearances are masks.
Objective Morality = Virtue Signalling
I wonder why you praise it so much.
Quoting TimeLine
Please. For 24 hours, don't use this word anymore >:O
Quoting TimeLine
You got it smarty :P
By the way, just to illustrate that rationality/reason isn't all there is to morality. What's your position on the story of Abraham and Isaac? Was Abraham right to accept to sacrifice his son Isaac because God asked him to? This divine suspension of the ethical must be included in any real morality.
It seems you're satisfied with the current version of rationality we have. Any ''problem'' that arises you dismiss it as something wrong with, for example, initial assumptions or some other failing of the domain you're investigating. I see nothing wrong with that BUT there's an alternative you're completely ignoring. Could rational thinking itself be the culprit? As a fundamental doubt what I'm saying is not new at all. History has many instances of alternative modes of inquiry - mysticism is a case in point. Also Zen Buddhism.
When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts.
That's not true at all. In fact that's a very regular theme of especially postmodernism, post-structuralism, etc.
How would we know the answer to this except through reason?
I think you're maybe unaware of Maxine Sheets-Johnstone's 'The primacy of movement'. She's a dancer who became a philosopher and argues very cogently for a philosophical approach to humanity based on our ways of moving. I move therefore I am. It's very stimulating to read.
Another paradox to shock rationality.
Look, my place with Kant does stop at that point viz., compassion as I too personally agree that there is more to self-actualisation than what reason can dictate, but notwithstanding, the categorical imperative' purpose remains a tool to articulate that subjective experience into an objective action, a way in which one can narrate feelings of guilt for committing something immoral, to utter an inherently unknowable that renders one capable of redemption and to say "I'm sorry" since such language or moral deliberation is articulated through knowledge. What is knowable must evidently require reason but reason itself is also subject to err (likely the effect of our impulses), hence the necessity of authenticity in this applied self-actualisation. It is finding the mean between both Schopenhauer and Kant.
Authentic love has an incredible power in transforming us from mindless drones dictated by impulse or ego to genuinely compassionate and moral beings but without consciousness of this knowledge that enables one to commit themselves to affect causal powers by adhering to a set of commandments, one could quite easily lapse into a state of self-delusion that inevitably make them worse, hence the parable of the unclean spirit returning (L11:24); love, without reason, is blind.
I agree that no one cannot really know what is going on within a person, that is the precise point and the very purpose of ethics. I find it very difficult tolerating false liars pretending they a good people, using contemporary modes of social ettiequte to enable this false image when they contribute nothing, all this pretending and games merely a way to convince those around them that they are good people. It really is painful to see that sociopathy has become a norm.
Is Kant a rational, autonomous and virtuous man? :P
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, you're not telling me something too controversial here - I agree :D
Quoting TimeLine
I don't remember the parable of the unclean spirit to be like this. Instead Jesus was warning precisely against rational self-reliance and morality without religion/God. The point being is that without God - even if the spirit leaves the person, it will return 100 times stronger to inhabit a now cleaned house. This was like the Pharisees, who were outwardly virtuous, but inwardly rotten. Instead it is God - and God alone - who can drive the devil out. It is solely through God's mercy that redemption is possible, not through your own efforts. That was the message of Jesus.
I believe that reason without love is blind.
Quoting TimeLine
They are first and foremost deceiving themselves.
Holy moly. :-O Can it be?
[hide] (jk haha) [/hide]
Quoting TheMadFool
In other words, you don't have one example of a question that irrationality has answered. What is ironic is that you keep making rational statements in your effort to show that irrationality can provide answers in the same way rationality can.
What things combine to make more than the sum of their parts? Examples, please.
Again you've shackled your mind into thinking that irrationality is the only other option. I'm not too sure but the word ''conjecture'' is quite commonplace in the two champions of rationality - science and math. If I've understood it correctly ''conjecture'' means, in layman terms, a simple guess. A guess by definition is NOT rational as it isn't arrived at through logical thinking. Would you call this irrational? Or would you, in the least, abstain from quick judgment about this matter? The normal process is to check if a given conjecture is true or false after it is made. According to you this would be irrational but it's a normal and often used procedure in science and math.
Personally, I think there's another way, as yet undiscovered, to understand our world. I have no idea what it is but it's there somewhere, perhaps hidden in our subconscious mind.
[Quote="Harry Hindu"]What is ironic is that you keep making rational statements in your effort to show that irrationality can provide answers in the same way rationality can.[/quote]
Indeed I do. That's a conundrum a rational mind can't deal with, hence your comment. However, just to make a point, an irrational mind can easily take it in its stride. I'm not suggesting we become irrational. All I'm saying is a more powerful thinking tool may exist.
You've never heard of strong emergence? Some common examples of strong emergence would be consciousness, entanglement, and even the properties of water.
Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided?
If I'm asking a question, I haven't shackled my mind. I leaving it open for you to change it with the answer to my question.
Quoting TheMadFool
Irrationality is a feature entropy. You can have chaotic thoughts without the application of some energy, or willpower, to direct them into something meaningful and logical. Thinking logically is harder than thinking illogically.
Quoting TheMadFool
I wouldn't equate "thinking" with anything but being "rational" or "logical". If you aren't being rational or logical, then you aren't thinking, or at least not thinking properly.
Consciousness itself is a model of the world. The emergence of new properties as the result of smaller "particles" interacting at smaller scales is a product of the model, not a real feature of the universe. We use light to see and light interacts with different things at different size scales differently. Our brains use this information in light to create a visual model of the world. As as model, it isn't a perfect view of the world. Emergence is a kind of illusion our mind creates out of the information we get from light in the environment.
Classic.
Perhaps your question is loaded with prejudice. I would ask ''Is the universe rational?" Paradoxes are aplenty. Has rationality provided solutions to them?
That said I don't mean that we should give up on rationality wholesale. I only want to suggest the possibility of a higher order of thinking.
That's your response to that and the rest of my post?
What paradoxes? Rationality has provided many solutions - evolution by natural selection being one of the best ones.
Of course you can't give up on rationality. You can't help but be rational if you want to communicate with other people and have them understand you.
How about Buridan's Ass paradox?. Given two equally attractive options, rationality fails to provide, as you put it, a solution.
But the whole point of the Buridan's Ass paradox is the failure of rationality to provide a solution. You may say that it is rational to choose to live and make a choice BUT the choice itself is has no rational basis - at best it's random and at worst it's irrational.
So, one could say, the rational decision is to be irrational.
If you are saying that which one it chooses to consume first is random, or irrational, then again I say to you that it isn't. We all have biases that come to play when making decisions. Which one it consumes first will be the one it favors more, or that will produce the best results in the shortest amount of time. Drinking the water first may be favorable because you die sooner from lack of water than you would of a lack of food. Another thing is that many foods contain water, so eating food with water in them kills two birds with one stone. Is that enough rationality and reason for you to solve this "paradox"?
It is rational in such a situation to decide to act upon the outcome of a random or pseudo-random phenomenon, because it will break the deadlock and prevent starvation.
Despite the ludicrous unrealism of this scenario, the solution of deciding to act on the outcome of a pseudo-random trial is used in real life, for the same reason. Two parties in conflict agree to abide by the outcome of a coin toss, because although each dislikes the other's plan of action, they know that the result of no action at all is worse.
Quoting andrewk
So, you've floated three ideas here:
1. Rational
2. Random
3. Irrational
Please clarify
Sure. What exactly is it that you do not understand?
A very simple conception of the issue:
Rationality has rules.
Irrationality is breaking rules
Randomness is also breaking rules
So I don't see the distinction you between the last two.
Again, it's not irrational to make a choice when not making a choice causes you to die. In this situation, it doesn't matter if the donkey chose the hay or water. It only matters that the donkey choose one now, or die. That's a pretty rational, and easy, choice to make.
That's where you're getting into difficulty. Randomness is not breaking rules. It's just a different set of rules from non-randomness. If you study probability theory you will see that it is formally logical in exactly the same way as other branches of mathematics.
In my opinion randomness is a total absence of rules. If I were to behave randomly that would necessitate an inability on the part of anyone to predict my behavior. Had I been, contrariwise, behaving as per some rules it would be only a matter of time before someone would decipher my rule-based method and predict my actions. And I think this view of randomness conforms with the general consensus on the matter.
Why would you say that randomness has a "different set of rules"? Can you cite some examples of such rules
The Kolmogorov framework for probability theory.
Can you tell me?
By the way, 'chaos' is different from 'random', although the two are often confused, because both phenomena make something unpredictable.
Ok. I'm still confused but I'll agree with you for the moment.
How do you fit your interpretation of random with my OP, especially with Buridan's ass paradox? It's my view that the ass is left with no option but to choose randomly. Reason can't assist in this decision because, well, there is no reason to guide the choice. I think the absence of reason in this case implies the decision is/has to be irrational. I have a feeling you'll disagree. I don't know.
If a rational choice could be made, as you're suggesting, why did the ass have to toss a coin?
There's a big difference between using rationality to discover the truths of the universe and using rationality to decide which option to choose from that will result in the best outcome for myself and/or the most people. It is a fact that we, as human beings, have conflicting goals - both with each other and within ourselves. Evolutionary Psychology has proposed reasons for this - that our brains evolved different modules to solve different problems of survival. We have our ancient, instinctive module of the brain, and our thoughtful, social module of the brain as examples. This and the widespread diversity of human beings and their cultures that come into conflict for all sorts of reasons can be pointed to as the reason why we have moral dilemmas.
As I have mentioned before, every moral dilemma comes down to one question: Who has more rights to achieve their goals? - an individual, or the majority of individuals, and if the former then which individual, and if the later then what about minorities?
As for what we desire, we were never guaranteed that the truths we discover would be desirable to us as individuals, to human beings, not even to life itself. "Desirable" is simply a term associated with some thing or idea that is key to achieving one's goals. Organisms are the only thing that seem to have goals with their seemingly "striving" for survival. But if one takes a different perspective, organisms are simply doing what they do, and as they were designed by the process of natural selection which has no forethought containing any "designs" before the "designs" appear in reality. If so, then where is the planned designs relative to the actual design in nature? The universe has no goals, therefore no desires.
Do you think it irrational that, at the beginning of a football or cricket match, the two captains agree to toss a coin to decide which one gets to choose which direction to run (football) or whether to bat (cricket)?
Do you think it irrational that rugby is played with a non-spherical ball, thereby introducing an element of randomness into the game through the unpredictably of how the ball will bounce? [Tais toi, all you soccer devotees that are screaming Yes, Yes, Yes!!!
If tossing a coin is rational then why not use it for ALL situations, from what we should eat to whether God exists or not? It's rational (according to you) after all.
The decision to toss a coin is rational in some situations, of which we've had three examples.
It is not rational in all situations.
Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail?
Quoting andrewk
What is this difference?
You seem to be under the impression that those quotes contradict each other. Yet if you follow each one back and look at the statement to which it was responding, you will see that they are in complete agreement. [Hint, you'll find the first one is referring to a decision, not a toss]
Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail?
No, I'd use my brains:)
You're being purposely cryptic. Anyway I'll play along.
You seem to be saying only a person can be rational or irrational. A coin toss is not a person, it is random and so, it's neither rational nor irrational.
However...the natural thing when faced with equally desirable/undesirable options is not to pull out a coin and make a toss. What we actually do is make a random choice. So, here a person is making the choice. Is s/he rational or irrational? Clearly s/he is NOT rational because if rationality could assist s/he wouldn't resort to random choices.
C
That doesn't follow.