The purpose of Reason is to show that there are no Reasons
Aristotle defined man as rational animal. Two things:
1. We are animals
2. In addition to 1 we are rational
The animal in us can't be distinguished from other animals - basic needs and basic instincts all present.
The rational part in us, over the millenia it has been functioning, has used reason, supposedly humanity's greatest asset, to tame the world in our favor.
One significant portion of this taming has been reining in our basic animal instincts. The way we do that is through reason. Buddha, who I consider a powerful intellect relevant even now, claimed that there really is no reason to be sad, angry, jealous, and all the emotions that make us suffer.
Of course one emotion he forgot to include in his throw-away list was happiness. What's the difference between jealousy and happiness? Aren't they both emotions - animal instincts?
Anyway, our brains have been on the job for two millenia and the ultimate conclusion it has reached is that there is no reason or if you like purpose to life.
Reason has proven that we exist, like so many of those bad arguments philosophers so love to attack, without a rational foundation. This I think is the single greatest and saddest discovery of the human intellect. Great because it shows us our true state/nature and sad because it crushes even the most spirited child.
The situation is analogous to nuclear weapons. (Einstein) E = mc^2 is a landmark discovery but it has the potential to initiate an apocalypse. Einstein was a humble man but "self-effacing" takes on a new meaning altogether.
We're just animals trying hard not to be animals. The one thing that we have, our intellect, reveals to us that there really is no point in being an animal, at least in terms of some basic instincts.
As for being human, devoid of any animal instincts, it appears that we're aiming for computer-like pure mind - only thinking, no feeling.
I guess humans are sitting between two possible worlds - the world of unthinking, only feeling instincts and the world of pure exclusive emotionless thinking.
1. We are animals
2. In addition to 1 we are rational
The animal in us can't be distinguished from other animals - basic needs and basic instincts all present.
The rational part in us, over the millenia it has been functioning, has used reason, supposedly humanity's greatest asset, to tame the world in our favor.
One significant portion of this taming has been reining in our basic animal instincts. The way we do that is through reason. Buddha, who I consider a powerful intellect relevant even now, claimed that there really is no reason to be sad, angry, jealous, and all the emotions that make us suffer.
Of course one emotion he forgot to include in his throw-away list was happiness. What's the difference between jealousy and happiness? Aren't they both emotions - animal instincts?
Anyway, our brains have been on the job for two millenia and the ultimate conclusion it has reached is that there is no reason or if you like purpose to life.
Reason has proven that we exist, like so many of those bad arguments philosophers so love to attack, without a rational foundation. This I think is the single greatest and saddest discovery of the human intellect. Great because it shows us our true state/nature and sad because it crushes even the most spirited child.
The situation is analogous to nuclear weapons. (Einstein) E = mc^2 is a landmark discovery but it has the potential to initiate an apocalypse. Einstein was a humble man but "self-effacing" takes on a new meaning altogether.
We're just animals trying hard not to be animals. The one thing that we have, our intellect, reveals to us that there really is no point in being an animal, at least in terms of some basic instincts.
As for being human, devoid of any animal instincts, it appears that we're aiming for computer-like pure mind - only thinking, no feeling.
I guess humans are sitting between two possible worlds - the world of unthinking, only feeling instincts and the world of pure exclusive emotionless thinking.
Comments (21)
You make the latter sound quite bleak (emotionless, computer-like). Have you ever experienced anything that is relatable to such a state of "being"? Many of the world's religions and spiritual teachings regard it as a form of enlightenment and one of the highest experiences possible to man.
Could be. Reason the verb critiques reasons as nouns.
Quoting TheMadFool
Reason is sufficient to prove that brain operation is conditioned by an empirical foundation, but as yet, the brain’s operation is insufficient to prove reason cannot be rationally foundational.
Aristotle would've agreed and Buddha would've too but there's a significant difference between the two which I think sheds some light on what you say here.
Aristotle recommended the golden mean which is simply don't get too emotional - avoid extremes. Buddha with his middle path gives the same advice about emotions with one exception - happiness. Enlightenment is touted as a state of eternal bliss.
As it appears to me an enlightened being, in the broadest sense of that term would both cease to be a cause of and be affected by negative emotions and thoughts. Such a person would have the cake and eat it too - an animal but not completely an animal, a thinking machine and not completely a machine.
:chin: ???
Higher Consciousness
The three lower consciousnesses that are
Obsessed with the securing of objects,
With the chasing of sensations, and with
Power/control will never ever be enough.
There are NO actions of people that can
Justify our becoming irritable
Angry, fearful, jealous or anxious if
We give them our unconditional love.
Stress is the difference between what we
Expect to happen and what does happen,
Especially when we put our needs ahead
Of other, oft resulting in needless anger.
If we don’t accept the unacceptable,
Then we lower our level of consciousness
Our response will mirror their uptightness—
Which can spread the bad moods onto others.
Conscious Awareness, which can but witness,
Is a safe haven from which to observe
The drama of our lives playing in our minds,
Granting us a sobering distance from it.
From a safe subjective place that’s free of fear,
Our soul, our conscious awareness, can witness
The strange thoughts and emotions that surface
On the mind, sent by the subconscious brain.
Putting ourselves in the place of others
When hurtful things are done to us,
Expands our consciousness, compassion, and love
Since we can come to know why they did it.
When we converse with ourselves, it is our
Higher Consciousness—our Conscious Awareness
Or I, that questions our lower consciousness
Impulses toward securing, sensation, and power.
Seeing the big picture of life and its stages
And connections lets one not get annoyed, say,
At being cut off in traffic, for s/he
May be old, learning, lost, growing, or angry.
Putting the needs of others ahead of
Our own produces the byproduct of
Happiness and reduces stress, for we
No longer have unrealistic expectations.
Some fall for their thoughts, hook, line, and sinker:
Conditioned responses, reflexes, or
Overwhelming emotions, some spurious,
Or ancient, planted by evolution, or unbalanced.
Emotions are slow to react to logic,
Like molasses or slow forming crystals,
Or not at all, like rocks, blocking them.
Unless and until they change, progress halts.
Reason and emotion are hard to coordinate,
Each having a separate pathway to the mind,
That, perhaps, is all there is to tell about the
Miseries and follies of human history.
First-level thoughts are beliefs and desires,
But second-level thoughts are beliefs
And desires about the beliefs and desires,
Becoming able spectators of the scene beneath.
This detachment allows
The ‘thinking about a thought’
Without the thought itself
Trying to steal the show.
:up: :clap:
Quoting TheMadFool
Where are you getting that from?
Sisyphus
Proven? Strong claim! Let's have that proof! :razz:
French existentialists sitting hunched over black coffee and Gauloise in the Second Arondisement.
To the ancient Greeks, discerning 'reason' meant 'understanding by reasoned analysis the causes of things'. That effort gave rise to many elements of Western civilisation itself, including modern science and much else besides. The 'rational soul of man' as the medievals saw it, was the aspect of the human that transcended the perishable flesh by combining Greek philosophy with Biblical faith.
With the large-scale abandonment of traditional religious belief then this conception of reason was also abandoned. During the 19th-20th century the widespread acceptance of scientific materialism was associated with the view that 'man is but the accidental collocation of atoms', in Bertrand Russell's words. Hence existentialism and many other schools of philosophy that attempted to re-frame man's place in an apparently meaningless universe.
Buddhism came out of a totally different cultural milieu, with very different aims. Buddhism was not curious about nature or its mastery, but discontent and its causes. The Buddha's aim was liberation from the eternal caravan of reincarnation, an idea that is preserved in the Orphics that pre-dated Plato, but was pretty well altogether lost by a few centuries thereafter.
It's like a default setting. Innocent until proven guilty or something like that :smile:
other
animals.
We could get rid of our eyes because we have reason, but that would be dumb. To me getting rid of emotions is dumb.
We are successful because we are social mammals, which entails emotions.
Beyond that it is getting rid of part of me. Why would I want to do that?
Being as integrated as possible, now that seems like a worthy goal. Getting reason and emotions to work well together and so on.
'Too emotional' is a contextless rule. How do we measure the correct amount of emotion? Well, likely with all the random judgments handed down through generations, affecting parenting and communal tongue clucking.
It's an interesting duality that lies at the heart of many philosophies. Most seem to agree that a state of being where the mind is governed by reason (though not necessarily devoid of emotion, an important distinction) is, as you say it, bliss.
The Hellenes thought that those who never rise above their animal natures would dwell, forever blind and slumbering, in Hades. Those who followed the path of reason would earn their place alongside the gods. That says something about how highly they esteemed this philosophical concept.
Doesn't it then follow that the purpose of reason is to lead man to this higher state of being?
Tell that to a rape victim or an abused child.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I notice that we are always supposed to accept what is outside us, but when it comes to emotions we label negative, we are not supposed to accept them. The hypocrisy of the various buddhisms, taking that term both literally and then also metaphorically to include other belief systems with the same, old judgments.
When this is pointed out, often one is told, oh but they do accept what is inside. They accept it by detaching it, not allowing it expression. This is not love or compassion as would be clear if we treated babies or lovers this way.
If you can work out Mad Fool’s point, please tell it too him. :smile:
I have no definitive answer to your question. I've heard people say that evolution, the current paradigm, has no goal i.e. there's no purpose.
That said the human intellect is a very powerful tool enabling us to give direction or "purpose" to evolution - dog and horse breeders have shown that we can consciously choose which traits to enhance or discard.
Another issue is the idea of leaving behind our animal nature in our quest for what you call [i]"higher state of being"[/I]. Do we really want to give up love, sexual pleasure, happiness; these are animal instincts right?
Well, depending on what philosophy one follows it is not at all necessary to leave such things behind.
It is often emphasized that the animal parts of our nature should be firmly under control by reason. Plato for example describes the soul as having three parts, a reasoning part, an emotional part and a desiring part. In what Plato calls the just soul, the reasoning part is in control and works together with the emotional part to control the desiring part.
As such it is possible to enjoy pleasurable things without, for example, desiring for more, or to envy someone who is enjoying some sort of pleasure.
Love and happiness are in most of these teachings central themes and are cultivated rather than left behind. I think it is too rash to attribute all emotion to the animal part of our being.
"Control" is just another way of saying that some aspects of our animal nature are undesirable. I guess emotions like anger, jealousy, malice, etc. would fall in this category.
If what you say is true then there are desirable emotions which probably include happiness and love. These, as you say, need to be refined and then cultivated further.
I don't think undesirable is the right word. As long as they are kept under control negative emotions can be very constructive. They can help one understand oneself, one's own imperfections.
This Tibetan lama gives a very clear explanation of how Buddhism looks at negative emotions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIy3bSEKGHA
Thanks for the video but I can't help noticing that you wrote "one's own imperfections".
While I've said things that suggest some emotions are undesirable I don't fully get the whole picture to make a sensible comment on the matter.
Nonetheless it must be the case that there are long queues at the roller coaster ride or the house of horrors.