Rational Men, An Irrational World

Honestly, this isn't unique to men, just far more common amongst them, I think because of the subtle cultural idea that "Men are Rational" (and women are not).

Regardless of who does it, its so entirely silly, I think people really overestimate what Rationalism is and can do. So often it does only just that, it *rations*, makes measurement units that are easy for structural utility.
It doesn't make these measurements *real*, doesn't even make what they're representative of *real*, it just makes them useful to work.

Same often goes for when I hear science bros go "Science says".
Science doesn't say anything; it isn't personified. Do you mean "Scientist(s) say"? Then which ones are you talking about, because plenty disagree with eachother. Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of paleontologists? They respect eachother (usually), but they certainly don't always agree.

Thats a good thing, ultimately, thats a notable part of the scientific process. And scientists do often agree on different premises more broadly, but when all of that is just used to say "Science says", it shows not only a lack of understanding in science, but a desire to make your opinion acceptable because of an external authority.

Really, even more than that though, it becomes not only silly, but genuinely dangerous when they start to not even understand their own emotional states as a result, or to devalue emotions, subjective values, intuition, sensory perception, and everything else "not rational". Those things ultimately aren't rationalizable, because not everything in the world is devisable in a rational sense. Part of the world is qualitative and must be understood as such, it's not rationale and logic the whole way down.
Hell, even Quantum Theory, Neuroscience, and other "rational fields" begin to figure out as much.

Anyways, this post is probably pretty hard for a lot to understand, I know, but its been on my mind a lot lately.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

fakable

rationalism is an artificial concept of descartes

he spoke of the fact that an effect has a cause

he's right

every thought you have is rational, even if you don't see the reason for the thought

in a practical sense...
you do or don't do an action based on reason alone

it is in the will of your mind to determine some reasons for your action as not rational

it may be a subconscious process

but you are always in the field of the mind

that's the way the world works

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable One has to wonder if cause and effect are not so much a result of a cognitive, rationally measuring function itself, rather than a truly wholistic perception of reality in-of-itself.

In other words, I wonder to what extent cause and effect might be a premise created by the fact we live in a world where time moves in the way and direction it is, and that is yet again, a way we measure it by. If time was reversed, do you think cause and effect would still look the same? Probably not, it would probably look reversed.

My point here being that cause and effect may be more synchronistic in nature than is first obvious in a purely rational sense; that there is no real phenomenological division there in reality.

fakable

@LuciliaLucyfer

this is the next level
few people consider the issues under discussion at this level
congratulations

reality is incomprehensible by thinking

reality is not perceived by our "i am" directly

our "i am" are part of the thinking process

now we can go to the next level

but there will be no concept of reality, time, cause, effect, etc

and there will be no descriptive language

ommmmmmmmmmmm

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable Quite precisely. Its what im trying to hint at for the "HYPER-RATIONAL SCIENCE" Bros that go around.

Regardless, thank youuu.

Om a reference to the fact that in a lot of Zen and Dharmic practices Om basically means the eternal "is"?

fakable

@LuciliaLucyfer

probably

i don't know

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable You're not sure?

fakable

@LuciliaLucyfer

omm

in the context of our communication it is a semantic reference to the limit of comprehension of reality to which human consciousness can touch

probably

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable Fair and close enough, to me though, the universe can be understood and or comprehended through other non-rational means too, which is an important.

I don't know about "the entire universe" or the foundations of it, whatever that may mean, but more of it than can be linguistically or rationally understood.

fakable

@LuciliaLucyfer

you can
in the image and likeness of

approximately

but honestly, it's impossible to do it accurately with human consciousness

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable To describe sure. To cognitively understand, or linguistically state. But pure perception may better be able to.

fakable

@LuciliaLucyfer
pure perception you already have

LuciliaLucyfer · 18-21, T

@fakable Indeed.