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. — TheMadFool

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?

Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't arguing about any of my statements but about:

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." — Noble Dust

There's nothing nonsensical in this quote.

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

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.

Kant' philosophy is about objective morality — TimeLine

That's the problem.

morality and compassion is merely a subjective experience — 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.

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. — 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.

autonomy. — TimeLine

Please. For 24 hours, don't use this word anymore >:O

Hence the 'fail to get it' bit... :-} — 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.

You're too quick to judge. If memory serves, Einstein's ToR was initially dismissed as ''nonsense''.

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 is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? — Harry Hindu

When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts.

. They never doubt the tool itself - rational thinking. — TheMadFool

That's not true at all. In fact that's a very regular theme of especially postmodernism, post-structuralism, etc.

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. — TheMadFool

How would we know the answer to this except through reason?

As a former contemporary dancer, I can actually understand this, but I hardly think the philosophical world would. — TimeLine

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.

How would we know the answer to this except through reason? — darthbarracuda

Another paradox to shock rationality.

Feelings of compassion are always morally relevant. 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. — Agustino

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.

my place with Kant — TimeLine

Is Kant a rational, autonomous and virtuous man? :P

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. — TimeLine

Okay, you're not telling me something too controversial here - I agree :D

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. — 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.

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. — TimeLine

They are first and foremost deceiving themselves.

Okay, you're not telling me something too controversial here - I agree :D — Agustino

Holy moly. :-O Can it be?

No, I was only kidding >:)

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? — Harry Hindu

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. — 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.

WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? — Harry Hindu

When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts. — Sivad

What things combine to make more than the sum of their parts? Examples, please.

In other words, you don't have one example of a question that irrationality has answered. — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

What things combine to make more than the sum of their parts? Examples, please. — Harry Hindu

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 shackled your mind into thinking that irrationality is the only other option. — TheMadFool

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Harry Hindu

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. — 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.

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness?

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.

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu

Classic.

Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided? — Harry Hindu

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.

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu


Classic. — Sivad

That's your response to that and the rest of my post?

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. — TheMadFool

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.

It's clear from your post that you're​ not exactly up on the subject and yet apparently you hold some strong opinions on it and that's​ not promising for productive dialogue, so whatever.

It's you that appears to be not up on the subject. Statements implying strong emergence are statements about our understanding not about the universe itself.

What paradoxes? — Harry Hindu

How about Buridan's Ass paradox?. Given two equally attractive options, rationality fails to provide, as you put it, a solution.

That's the example of a paradox that you're providing? The "paradox" fails to take into account that I can drink the water and eat the hay before I die. Being rational, I see that it is the waiting to make a decision that would mean my death. Fortunately, it takes time to die of thirst and hunger (several days). Therefore, I wouldn't wait, I'd consume both before I die therefore preventing my death. Death (the problem) is easily avoidable because you can consume both before you die. This isn't a paradox at all.

This isn't a paradox at all — Harry Hindu

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.