That might describe me too. Thanks gib for shining more light on the mirror. 
Which part? The āresident absenteeā or the āprofessional illogicianā?
Cāmon gib - I think you can answer that question. Which do I mostly resemble ~ to you? Observation is everything! 
Enjoy your dayā¦ 
āResident Absenteeā sounds like the safer guess. 
WRONG!!! 
You are pawned. Stop projecting. 
What??? Really?!?! 
I never would have taken you for an illogician!
I donāt see whatās so fabulous about logic. Once you break this shit down it stops being logical anyway. It all goes back to Pascal, man. Who gives a shit? - Believe what makes you cool with all this nonsense. Because thatās what it is anyway, nonsense: a fucking ride - a fucking rollercoaster that may or may not end in eternal nothingness. You are what you eat? Fuck that. You are what you believe. āWhether you think you can or think you canāt, youāre right.ā Your move, world.
Does logic make you angry Twilight?
I havenāt experienced anger in years.
Logic is good for something. Itās a great tool for problem solving, it just canāt solve all the problems or maybe even the most important problems for man. More than anything else, you need heart and soul.
I agree about the craziness that is the world.
Really? And when did you cease to be human? Was it after your labotomy? 
Since my nervous breakdown, circa 2010.
Oh, dude I didnāt mean it wasnāt good for anything; just that I donāt think everything needs to be logically bulletproof 100% of the time; that itās āokayā to indulge in certain āquestionableā ideology for the sake of enjoyment, happiness and fulfillment, for instance.
ā¦ Iām basically saying the āfeminineā/āemotionalā/āspiritualā side of the human experience is every bit on par with the newtonian/freudian/cartesian/rationalist paradigm that denounces those presentations/manifestations as useless and unreal.
edit: Well shit ā¦ basically this: britannica.com/EBchecked/top ā¦ ationalism
Should be familiar to most here.
yeah yeah, I agree. What did you mean about it all going back to Pascal? Iām not much familiar with him other than the Wager.
Yes, Pascalās Wager. Basically that if you believe and are wrong youāve lost nothing; if you disbelieve and are wrong youāve lost everything. Elementary case for general faith, be it positive thinking in general (āThe Secretā; āLaw of Atrractionā) or believing in the Christian God, whatever floats your boat. Atheism and nihilism certainly donāt offer a better alternative, and āscienceā proper is demonstrably exempt from thinking about such matters - to say nothing of what quantum physics and string-theory and the rest of it implies for human consciousness and ādestiny.ā
Iām really not a kook, I swear. Itās just where the rabbit-hole has taken me. Logic aināt all that.
Yes, Iāve thought about it before and for a second I sided with Pascal about believing in whatever puts you in the best position not to lose bigābut ultimately I think Pascal underestimated what it actually takes to believe something. For me, I just cannot believe in the Christian conception of God, for example, even if my life depended on it. I canāt do it. Iād have to give up some other belief in my worldview that I hold very strongly. I canāt completely flip my beliefs around just to conform to some rational gambling scenario; it wouldnāt be sincere so it wouldnāt work.
Iām placing my bets on my gut, I guess.
Yep, reminds of the book Irrational Man, by William Barrett. That was the first real work about existentialism I ever read.
Fuck yeah that book was my shit.
āThe subjectivity that is generally present in modem art is a psychological compensation for, sometimes a violent revolt against, the gigantic externalization of life within modem society. The world pictured by the modem artist is, like the world meditated upon by the existential philosopher, a world where man is a stranger.ā
I donāt disagree. It (the Wager) is only indirectly related. The basic point is closer to a line from Bull Durham:
[i]You know how hard this game is? If
you believe you're playing well
because you're getting laid or because
you're not getting laid or because
you wore red silk panties -- [b]then
you are[/b][/i]
"The profession of the philosopher in the modem world is to be a professor of philosophy; and the realm of Being which the philosopher inhabits as a living individual is no more recondite than a corner within the university.
Not enough has been made of this academic existence of the philosopher, though some contemporary Existentialists have directed searching comment upon it. The price one pays for having a profession is a dĆ©formation professionelle, as the French put itāa professional deformation. Doctors and engineers tend to see things from the viewpoint of their own specialty, and usually show a very marked blind spot to whatever falls outside this particular province. The more specialized a vision the sharper its focus; but also the more nearly total the blind spot toward all things that lie on the periphery of this focus. As a human being, functioning professionally within the Academy, the philosopher can hardly be expected to escape his own professional deformation, especially since it has become a law of modem society that man is assimilated more and more completely to his social function. And it is just here that a troublesome and profound ambiguity resides for the philosopher today. The profession of philosophy did not always have the narrow and specialized meaning it now has."
lol, I think I just found a copy of the text online. The book is pretty old (like 1957, I think) so it may not even be under strict copyright anymore, I dunno.