# As always, I want to say something irrational and random
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293
**Category:** Non-Philosophical Chat
**Created:** [May 22, 2008, 5:41am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293 "2008-05-22T05:41:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 19
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2008, 5:41am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/1 "2008-05-22T05:41:26Z")
As always, I want to say something irrational and random, just to witness confusion in the other, to create some distance between us, but I want to do it in such a way that still reminds the other of my sane qualities, to re-unite us.
No, no, i dont want to do that, never.
Slipping down the surface of things . . .
Floating on the surface for the birds . . . to peck me like a talk show host.
dont respond, cuz i wont respond. Those are the RULES.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2008, 6:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/2 "2008-05-22T06:24:07Z")
You broke the rules.
Whoops, so did I.
funny thing is, right now all i am wearing is underwear, and i do feel like a silly little bitch.
I am going bald, i have a beard, and a beer belly, before the age of thirty. I also like hanging on trees, upside down, so i guess that makes me a silly little fruitbat, in addition to my being a bitch.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/3 "2008-05-22T15:56:44Z")
> [@Churro the Viscous](#):
>
> Shut up and bend over.
I’m more of a huncher. Can I hunch over?
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 23, 2008, 12:00am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/4 "2008-05-23T00:00:30Z")
> [@Churro the Viscous](#):
>
> Yes, that’s fine.
Thank you. You are nice Mr. Viscous.
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 23, 2008, 8:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/5 "2008-05-23T08:47:52Z")
Wanting to say something ‘irrational’ and ‘random’ is the sign of a weak imagination.
Nothing written is irrational. Or random. These are just false concepts invented to sell rebellion to bored people.
---
### Author:  [@Impenitent](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impenitent)
#### Post date: [May 23, 2008, 10:37am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/6 "2008-05-23T10:37:17Z")
false concepts?!?! false concepts?!?
no no no! the concepts are true!!! [size=170]true!!![/size] [size=200]TRUE!!![/size]
the people spouting them are false…
(good to see you back…)
-Imp
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 23, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/7 "2008-05-23T14:55:18Z")
> [@someoneisatthedoor](#):
>
> Wanting to say something ‘irrational’ and ‘random’ is the sign of a weak imagination.
>
> Nothing written is irrational. Or random. These are just false concepts invented to sell rebellion to bored people.
is the sign a weak sign?
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 24, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/8 "2008-05-24T20:26:29Z")
> [@nano-bug](#):
>
> > [@someoneisatthedoor](#):
> >
> > Wanting to say something ‘irrational’ and ‘random’ is the sign of a weak imagination.
> >
> > Nothing written is irrational. Or random. These are just false concepts invented to sell rebellion to bored people.
>
> is the sign a weak sign?
Naturally.
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 24, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/9 "2008-05-24T20:28:35Z")
> [@Impenitent](#):
>
> false concepts?!?! false concepts?!?
>
> no no no! the concepts are true!!! [size=170]true!!![/size] [size=200]TRUE!!![/size]
>
> the people spouting them are false…
>
> (good to see you back…)
>
> -Imp
Good to be back, and good to see that some things never change (i.e. you’re still as barmy as ever). Here’s one I heard recently that you might like:
Q - Why is the area around a woman’s belly button called a ‘waist’?
A - Because you could easily get another pair of tits on there.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 25, 2008, 1:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/10 "2008-05-25T01:31:46Z")
> [@someoneisatthedoor](#):
>
> > [@nano-bug](#):
> >
> > > [@someoneisatthedoor](#):
> > >
> > > Wanting to say something ‘irrational’ and ‘random’ is the sign of a weak imagination.
> > >
> > > Nothing written is irrational. Or random. These are just false concepts invented to sell rebellion to bored people.
> >
> > is the sign a weak sign?
>
> Naturally.
You are very sure of yourself. If i wanted you to think i was giving a weak impression, what then? Is weakness ever better? Does the softness ever overcome the hard, the way water wears down a rock?
or is it neccesary to feel superior, no matter how illusory power is?
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 25, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/11 "2008-05-25T16:08:08Z")
> [@nano-bug](#):
>
> You are very sure of yourself.
You are very sure that I am very sure of myself. Appearances can deceive.
> [@](#):
>
> If i wanted you to think i was giving a weak impression, what then?
Then you’d come out with something hackneyed and unoriginal like ‘I want to be original’.
> [@](#):
>
> Is weakness ever better?
No. Strength always overcomes weakness, in some sense. Weakness can only ever be a temporary tactic of subversion, like dodging a blow in karate, or allowing someone’s weight to carry them over you in judo.
> [@](#):
>
> Does the softness ever overcome the hard, the way water wears down a rock?
Ultimately, water goes where gravity and the rocks tell it to. A bit of erosion doesn’t change that.
> [@](#):
>
> or is it neccesary to feel superior, no matter how illusory power is?
Where does superiority come into it? I’m talking twofold - about possibilities in language (which randomnity and irrationality are not) and about ways of assessing imagination. Imagination is, of course, a somewhat pitiable abstract concept and all derivative criteria of assessing imagination are likewise. I mean no insult towards you. If anything, I’m trying to suggest that if you give up what I see as quasi-rebellious notions of irrationality and the like then your imagination will benefit as a result.
Or at least, it did with me. Obviously, I could be wrong about you, and I can do nothing to make you do what I suggest other than write it here. So I write it here. You could say ‘that’s that’.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 25, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/12 "2008-05-25T17:37:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> or is it neccesary to feel superior, no matter how illusory power is?
Where does superiority come into it? I’m talking twofold - about possibilities in language (which randomnity and irrationality are not) and about ways of assessing imagination. Imagination is, of course, a somewhat pitiable abstract concept and all derivative criteria of assessing imagination are likewise. I mean no insult towards you. If anything, I’m trying to suggest that if you give up what I see as quasi-rebellious notions of irrationality and the like then your imagination will benefit as a result.
Or at least, it did with me. Obviously, I could be wrong about you, and I can do nothing to make you do what I suggest other than write it here. So I write it here. You could say ‘that’s that’.
[/quote]
[b]Well, since you’ve given it some thought I like to get more of your opinion. How are random and irrationality not possibilities? I would understand if you said there is nothing random in the universe, but then again, thats not what i’m after.
If i said Bam Bim Boot Skoot. Many people would be confused by that. They would say that it is random, came out of nowhere, that it was irrational because they have no rational way to counter. By their confusion, alone, aren’t they the weaker? I think you will say they are not, but I’d like to hear why.
I will admit it does feel a little rebellious to do that. In the sense that a majority of people base their thoughts on reason and never even think to cross over, just for fun. I personally believe irrationality has its place in the universe. I think that irrationality is what hope and faith are based on.
Finally, can you clear up what you imply as a strong imagination. What does it consist of, and what are its aims? I’d really like to know its aims. You see, irrational thoughts, when shared, have little or no use for the other. That makes me think you think strong imagination, when shared, is to be used. Well then, used for what purpose? And toward what aim, achieving what?
Perhaps if you answer those questions about imagination, I will be able to see how exactly it will benifit me. You can change my mind here, I am open to it.[/b]
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 12:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/13 "2008-05-27T12:17:37Z")
> [@nano-bug](#):
>
> Well, since you’ve given it some thought I like to get more of your opinion. How are random and irrationality not possibilities? I would understand if you said there is nothing random in the universe, but then again, thats not what i’m after.
Language doesn’t allow for irrationality or randomnity. It retains too much structure (even in a state of constant self-deconstruction).
> [@](#):
>
> If i said Bam Bim Boot Skoot. Many people would be confused by that.
Most people are idiots who are confused by almost everything.
> [@](#):
>
> They would say that it is random, came out of nowhere, that it was irrational because they have no rational way to counter.
Their mental limitations prove nothing about the actual state of the words. People clutching for words in confusion is hardly a sound basis for rhetorical analysis.
I’d point out that your first word starts with the first consonant in the alphabet (hardly a massive leap through language, since it’s only the second letter), and there’s only one letter difference between your first and second word (hardly random, since it’s almost identical), that three of your words start with the same letter and that the last two words rhyme.
Poetic, perhaps. But nothing like random. You’d do better with a primal scream, but even that will be inspired by animalistic noises you’ve heard in your life. You cannot escape the simple fact that you’ve learnt everything you know about language from someone else, according to a set of structures which, however uncertain, set limitations. Can you have randomnity in such a system? I’d say no.
> [@](#):
>
> By their confusion, alone, aren’t they the weaker? I think you will say they are not, but I’d like to hear why.
I’d say they are stupider. Not necessarily weaker.
> [@](#):
>
> I will admit it does feel a little rebellious to do that. In the sense that a majority of people base their thoughts on reason and never even think to cross over, just for fun.
The majority of people haven’t a clue what reason is.
And this ‘crossing over’ is a rational endeavour. It’s based on a supposed opposition (the sort of diametric logic made famous by the ancient Greeks), a distinction made in language (i.e. something metaphysical) and a process with an end in mind.
In fact, had you been trying to come up with an example of a rational endeavour, you probably couldn’t have done better than this.
> [@](#):
>
> I personally believe irrationality has its place in the universe. I think that irrationality is what hope and faith are based on.
Why? Rationality itself is based on hope and faith, which means that rationality is based on irrationality. Where does that get us?
> [@](#):
>
> Finally, can you clear up what you imply as a strong imagination. What does it consist of, and what are its aims?
Its aims are whatever ends it is put to by the ‘self’ who ‘possesses’ the imagination in question. Imagination per se isn’t worth anything and doesn’t do anything.
> [@](#):
>
> I’d really like to know its aims. You see, irrational thoughts, when shared, have little or no use for the other.
Give me an example of what you mean by an ‘irrational thought’.
> [@](#):
>
> That makes me think you think strong imagination, when shared, is to be used. Well then, used for what purpose? And toward what aim, achieving what?
If you’re asking what I try to use my imagination for then (trying to be brief and simple) I’d say for fucking with people’s heads. More academically, for challenging dangerous preconceptions and trying to rid the world of dogmatism.
But I’m not going to pretend this is some wildly irrational mission just to flatter my own ego and convince myself I’m special.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps if you answer those questions about imagination, I will be able to see how exactly it will benifit me. You can change my mind here, I am open to it.
It’ll benefit you because you’ll be less introspective and consider topics of interest far beyond what you currently do. Your life will be richer, more varied and more interesting as a result. Clinging to notions, whether you conceive of them as rational or irrational, will only limit you unnecessarily.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/14 "2008-05-27T18:06:10Z")
> [@someoneisatthedoor](#):
>
> > [@nano-bug](#):
> >
> > Well, since you’ve given it some thought I like to get more of your opinion. How are random and irrationality not possibilities? I would understand if you said there is nothing random in the universe, but then again, thats not what i’m after.
>
> Language doesn’t allow for irrationality or randomnity. It retains too much structure (even in a state of constant self-deconstruction).
>
> We are talking about the message here, not the composition of the ink with which it was written.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > If i said Bam Bim Boot Skoot. Many people would be confused by that.
>
> Most people are idiots who are confused by almost everything.
>
> Mental power grab. Superiority. Rightness. Another issue for another thread.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > They would say that it is random, came out of nowhere, that it was irrational because they have no rational way to counter.
>
> Their mental limitations prove nothing about the actual state of the words. People clutching for words in confusion is hardly a sound basis for rhetorical analysis.
>
> So people without limitations are the only ones who know the actual state of words, when they still dont even know where language originates from?
>
> I’d point out that your first word starts with the first consonant in the alphabet (hardly a massive leap through language, since it’s only the second letter), and there’s only one letter difference between your first and second word (hardly random, since it’s almost identical), that three of your words start with the same letter and that the last two words rhyme.
>
> You should be a code breaker for NASA. Again, this not about the structure but about the degree of meaning in the message.
>
> Poetic, perhaps. But nothing like random. You’d do better with a primal scream, but even that will be inspired by animalistic noises you’ve heard in your life. You cannot escape the simple fact that you’ve learnt everything you know about language from someone else, according to a set of structures which, however uncertain, set limitations. Can you have randomnity in such a system? I’d say no.
>
> The same can be said about your opinions, you formed them around information that you’ve plucked from elsewhere. You cant reduce language to structure, but refuse to reduce opinions to there sources, either. Corn Pone Opinions by Mark Twain explains this. I suggest you read it when you get a chance.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > By their confusion, alone, aren’t they the weaker? I think you will say they are not, but I’d like to hear why.
>
> I’d say they are stupider. Not necessarily weaker.
>
> If YOU say so.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I will admit it does feel a little rebellious to do that. In the sense that a majority of people base their thoughts on reason and never even think to cross over, just for fun.
>
> The majority of people haven’t a clue what reason is.
>
> And yet they use it everyday.
>
> And this ‘crossing over’ is a rational endeavour. It’s based on a supposed opposition (the sort of diametric logic made famous by the ancient Greeks), a distinction made in language (i.e. something metaphysical) and a process with an end in mind.
>
> Thats true.
> The end is irrationality, with the aim to confuse, or else invite the idea of more silliness.
>
> In fact, had you been trying to come up with an example of a rational endeavour, you probably couldn’t have done better than this.
>
> As the three stooges say, “SUCCESS!”
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I personally believe irrationality has its place in the universe. I think that irrationality is what hope and faith are based on.
>
> Why? Rationality itself is based on hope and faith, which means that rationality is based on irrationality. Where does that get us?
>
> Where do you want to go?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Finally, can you clear up what you imply as a strong imagination. What does it consist of, and what are its aims?
>
> Its aims are whatever ends it is put to by the ‘self’ who ‘possesses’ the imagination in question. Imagination per se isn’t worth anything and doesn’t do anything.
>
> How can you say imagination isn’t worth anything, but apply value terms of strong and weak?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I’d really like to know its aims. You see, irrational thoughts, when shared, have little or no use for the other.
>
> Give me an example of what you mean by an ‘irrational thought’.
>
> Giants use tall oak trees to floss their teeth.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > That makes me think you think strong imagination, when shared, is to be used. Well then, used for what purpose? And toward what aim, achieving what?
>
> If you’re asking what I try to use my imagination for then (trying to be brief and simple) I’d say for fucking with people’s heads. More academically, for challenging dangerous preconceptions and trying to rid the world of dogmatism.
>
> I’m not gonna judge what you do.
>
> But I’m not going to pretend this is some wildly irrational mission just to flatter my own ego and convince myself I’m special.
>
> Because you’re above that, and special in a different way.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Perhaps if you answer those questions about imagination, I will be able to see how exactly it will benifit me. You can change my mind here, I am open to it.
>
> It’ll benefit you because you’ll be less introspective and consider topics of interest far beyond what you currently do. Your life will be richer, more varied and more interesting as a result. Clinging to notions, whether you conceive of them as rational or irrational, will only limit you unnecessarily.
Well, you didn’t convince me, and what shocks me about that, is that I wanted you to convince me.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/15 "2008-05-28T02:15:19Z")
> [@Churro the Viscous](#):
>
> It’s time again, Nano.
> Time for some lovin’.
> Hunch over.
Sock it to me.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/16 "2008-05-28T03:11:31Z")
> [@Churro the Viscous](#):
>
> I wrote a poem about you, Nano.
> You ready?
>
> She’ll rock your socks
> All the way to Ft. Knocks
> And she likes to play
> With Lego blocks.
>
> She can’t tell time,
> But she still likes clocks
> And she smiles as she passes
> Seagull flocks.
>
> I don’t know
> If she ever had chicken pox,
> But I assume
> She did.
How perverted of you. you little deviant.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 6:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/17 "2008-05-28T06:11:26Z")
> [@Churro the Viscous](#):
>
> :oops:
no worries about a thing. Expressing deviance is interesting.
---
### Author:  [@someoneisatthedoor](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/someoneisatthedoor)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 11:52am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/18 "2008-05-29T11:52:25Z")
> [@nano-bug](#):
>
> We are talking about the message here, not the composition of the ink with which it was written.
I’m not talking about ink. I’m talking about the structure of language. ‘The message’ is just another bunch of signifiers.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > If i said Bam Bim Boot Skoot. Many people would be confused by that.
>
> Most people are idiots who are confused by almost everything.
>
> Mental power grab. Superiority. Rightness. Another issue for another thread.
Hardly. Most people are idiots. Doesn’t make them inferior, it just means that their confusion doesn’t prove a damn thing about what you said.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > They would say that it is random, came out of nowhere, that it was irrational because they have no rational way to counter.
>
> Their mental limitations prove nothing about the actual state of the words. People clutching for words in confusion is hardly a sound basis for rhetorical analysis.
>
> So people without limitations are the only ones who know the actual state of words, when they still dont even know where language originates from?
No. We all have mental limitations.
> [@](#):
>
> I’d point out that your first word starts with the first consonant in the alphabet (hardly a massive leap through language, since it’s only the second letter), and there’s only one letter difference between your first and second word (hardly random, since it’s almost identical), that three of your words start with the same letter and that the last two words rhyme.
>
> You should be a code breaker for NASA. Again, this not about the structure but about the degree of meaning in the message.
Look up ‘syntactics’. It’s all about the relation between structure and meaning. Hell, look up ‘grammar’, it’s all about the relation between structure and meaning.
> [@](#):
>
> Poetic, perhaps. But nothing like random. You’d do better with a primal scream, but even that will be inspired by animalistic noises you’ve heard in your life. You cannot escape the simple fact that you’ve learnt everything you know about language from someone else, according to a set of structures which, however uncertain, set limitations. Can you have randomnity in such a system? I’d say no.
>
> The same can be said about your opinions, you formed them around information that you’ve plucked from elsewhere. You cant reduce language to structure, but refuse to reduce opinions to there sources, either. Corn Pone Opinions by Mark Twain explains this. I suggest you read it when you get a chance.
I’m not reducing language to structure, I’m saying it cannot escape that structure and your pathetic attempt to say something ‘random’ and ‘irrational’ has only proven my point. Rather than vaguely pointing me in the direction of Mark Twain, try explaining his argument yourself. I could say ‘Signature Event Context’ by Derrida refutes everything you said and then tell you to read it, but it would add no weight to my argument.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > By their confusion, alone, aren’t they the weaker? I think you will say they are not, but I’d like to hear why.
>
> I’d say they are stupider. Not necessarily weaker.
>
> If YOU say so.
Not a refutation. Try again.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I will admit it does feel a little rebellious to do that. In the sense that a majority of people base their thoughts on reason and never even think to cross over, just for fun.
>
> The majority of people haven’t a clue what reason is.
>
> And yet they use it everyday.
What’s your point?
> [@](#):
>
> And this ‘crossing over’ is a rational endeavour. It’s based on a supposed opposition (the sort of diametric logic made famous by the ancient Greeks), a distinction made in language (i.e. something metaphysical) and a process with an end in mind.
>
> Thats true.
> The end is irrationality, with the aim to confuse, or else invite the idea of more silliness.
A rational endeavour, like I said.
> [@](#):
>
> In fact, had you been trying to come up with an example of a rational endeavour, you probably couldn’t have done better than this.
>
> As the three stooges say, “SUCCESS!”
Again, what’s your point here?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I personally believe irrationality has its place in the universe. I think that irrationality is what hope and faith are based on.
>
> Why? Rationality itself is based on hope and faith, which means that rationality is based on irrationality. Where does that get us?
>
> Where do you want to go?
A better world than the current one.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Finally, can you clear up what you imply as a strong imagination. What does it consist of, and what are its aims?
>
> Its aims are whatever ends it is put to by the ‘self’ who ‘possesses’ the imagination in question. Imagination per se isn’t worth anything and doesn’t do anything.
>
> How can you say imagination isn’t worth anything, but apply value terms of strong and weak?
I said it wasn’t worth anything per se. We can place values on things all we like, it doesn’t bless them with that value inherently. If you paid attention to what I’ve actually written, rather than assuming you know what it means already, you’d have spotted this.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I’d really like to know its aims. You see, irrational thoughts, when shared, have little or no use for the other.
>
> Give me an example of what you mean by an ‘irrational thought’.
>
> Giants use tall oak trees to floss their teeth.
Where’s the irrationality? Once again, you use metaphysics and the logic of a means to an end (use of something to achieve something). These are rational. They may not make much sense, but they are rational.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > That makes me think you think strong imagination, when shared, is to be used. Well then, used for what purpose? And toward what aim, achieving what?
>
> If you’re asking what I try to use my imagination for then (trying to be brief and simple) I’d say for fucking with people’s heads. More academically, for challenging dangerous preconceptions and trying to rid the world of dogmatism.
>
> I’m not gonna judge what you do.
Nonetheless, you have been doing throughout this thread.
> [@](#):
>
> But I’m not going to pretend this is some wildly irrational mission just to flatter my own ego and convince myself I’m special.
>
> Because you’re above that, and special in a different way.
Nope. Though if you keep insulting me like this I will get nasty in response. My ego is nowhere near as important to me as your false one is to you. I don’t even believe in individual selfhood. You make it the starting point for everything you write. If you are content with those self-imposed limitations and the fact that you’re repeating liberal humanist dogma then fine, that’s up to you and there’s not a massive amount I can do about it. But if you pretend it is a sound philosophical basis then I’m going to point out why it isn’t.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you answer those questions about imagination, I will be able to see how exactly it will benifit me. You can change my mind here, I am open to it.
> >
> > It’ll benefit you because you’ll be less introspective and consider topics of interest far beyond what you currently do. Your life will be richer, more varied and more interesting as a result. Clinging to notions, whether you conceive of them as rational or irrational, will only limit you unnecessarily.
>
> Well, you didn’t convince me, and what shocks me about that, is that I wanted you to convince me.
You cling to your learned concepts like a drowning man does to a branch in a flooded river. I can’t change your entire attitude towards life, philosophy and conceiving of yourself. All I can do is explain the pratfalls and problems. If that doesn’t convince you then so be it. That’s your problem, not mine.
---
### Author:  [@nano-bug](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/nano-bug)
#### Post date: [May 30, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/as-always-i-want-to-say-something-irrational-and-random/21293/19 "2008-05-30T01:56:06Z")
Fine, I agree with you nothing is irrational or random. I have a weak imagination.