an irrational world, part 2

[wolfpeach]

"There is really no reason to suppose that animals have a clue about why they do what they instinctually do, and human beings are no exception; the deeper purposes of our "instincts" are seldom transparent to us. The difference between us and other species is that we are the only species that cares about this ignorance!"

"Breaking the spell,

Comments

[seinneann_ceoil]

I think there's a difference between irrationality and stupidity. There are things in life that are not about being rational. The human need to assign consciousness to deeper meaning could be one of them. I wouldn't quite put that in the same category as believing something that is palpably false or something that is stupid.

Even a philosopher who uses paradigms as a basis for theoretical reasoning is believing in something that is palpably false and impossible.

I guess it's a long rambling way to say that there are realms of being human where rationality isn't the stick we measure things by. Where would art be without irrationality?

As for the problems that arise from religion such as war, oppression, and people enslaving themselves around falsehoods: Yes, that is irrational, and moreover,it's the ugly side of irrationality. But I believe the roots of that lie far deeper than religion itself. These darker, cruel, irrational aspects of humanity manifest themselves many ways. And throughout history, religion was one of the tools used to manifest such things. The flipside, though, is that the very same religion has been used as a tool to manifest some of the most beautiful aspects of humanity.

I'll have to read that book.

irrationality & stupidity

[wolfpeach]

Yes, I agree that they are not the same thing. There's a difference. Perhaps we are talking about different things. And I would draw another distinction again between instinctual or intuitive "knowledge" (which might be right, might be wrong) and conscious understanding. I wasnt (necessarily) saying that religion is the root of all evil. Although it might be ;)

[wolfpeach]

Even a philosopher who uses paradigms as a basis for theoretical reasoning is believing in something that is palpably false and impossible.

I'm intrigued as to what you mean by this... could you explain?

[seinneann_ceoil]

Plato, for instance, used a concept that was later dubbed "Platonic form". For instance...if you were going to talk about a circle, Plato would say that we are invariably comparing that circle to our concept of what an absolutely perfect circle would be. Those imaginary perfect versions of things are the paradigms by which we operate. But a perfect circle doesn't exist in our and can't exist in our reality, only in our concept of it.

Thus do many ideas by which we form our relationship to reality with.

Platonic form

[wolfpeach]

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting.... Hmmm....

I'm familiar with the concept of platonic form, but I wouldnt count that - as it is commonly used as a philosophical tool - as "palpably false or impossible". Its a metaphor. The idea of a practically impossible ideal can be useful, but its useful in a pragmatic way, which accepts that the thing itself does not (and cannot) actually exist. (btw, To go from here to the position that "because we can imagine it, it must exist in some realm" is irrational - and correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Plato himself was inclined rather to this idea)

However, I would not put the commonly understood thought experiement of a platonic ideal in the same boat as religious "truths" - which are cherished as an article of faith believed to be literally true. From my pov, the concept of platonic form is quite explicitly a metaphor, whereas - for instance - fundamentalist christians take the creation story and the virgin birth as literal truth, as Roman Catholics do with trasubstantiaion.