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.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
I wasn't arguing about any of my statements but about:Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical. — Harry Hindu
There's nothing nonsensical in this quote.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
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
That's the problem.Kant' philosophy is about objective morality — 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.morality and compassion is merely a subjective experience — 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.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
Please. For 24 hours, don't use this word anymore >:Oautonomy. — TimeLine
You got it smarty :PHence the 'fail to get it' bit... :-} — TimeLine
When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts.WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? — Harry Hindu
. They never doubt the tool itself - rational thinking. — TheMadFool
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
As a former contemporary dancer, I can actually understand this, but I hardly think the philosophical world would. — TimeLine
How would we know the answer to this except through reason? — darthbarracuda
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
Is Kant a rational, autonomous and virtuous man? :Pmy place with Kant — TimeLine
Okay, you're not telling me something too controversial here - I agree :DI 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
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.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
They are first and foremost deceiving themselves.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
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
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.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
WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? — Harry Hindu
When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts. — Sivad
In other words, you don't have one example of a question that irrationality has answered. — 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. — Harry Hindu
What things combine to make more than the sum of their parts? Examples, please. — Harry Hindu
Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided?Again you've shackled your mind into thinking that irrationality is the only other option. — 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.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
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.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
How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu
Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided? — Harry Hindu
How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu
Classic. — Sivad
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? — Harry Hindu
This isn't a paradox at all — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.