Our object of desire isn’t to change belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we’re not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We’re just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your life, are the conflicts of self, we cannot compel such conflicts to our will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say or do to convince anyone else of what they don’t know for themselves. When the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known!
Yes, the “Others can lead us into experiences, awakenings.” - Well this is from all learned material that which is new and studied by such percievers . This is to say that we still cannot for our sake convince or instill our full theorems of what they have no basis to go off of for themselves. When they have no sheer inquiry into what’s being opinionated (or even for what we’ve faced and have experience with ourselves) they’re are only guessing. Yet there are those that are already awakened with such indisputable and already experimented evidence. To just prove to somebody something, is to have their acceptance of such encompassed disciplines already that have been proved, become valid in their eyes. And the whole having it already been proved is just that, something which needs more acceptance over and over to even be extolled publicly.
Authentic Reasoning is to reason out the reasons why we are reasoning in the first place.
The main reason [factors] that drive authentic reasoning is survival and the existential DOOM.
The ultimate of authentic reasoning is to kill reasoning and leave ourselves experiencing ‘that’ whatever it may be.
Well I’d love to leave out the whole reasoning spectrum anyway and allow others to experience for themselves too, what it was we were living for.
This I barely get… And I consider my self a philosopher. Yet isn’t it that, which is Authentic Reasoning, expressed truthfully to not permeate such conflicts?
It is survival [inherently progressive] that drive humans to strive for authentic reasoning. The opposite is crude, bad and false reasoning, i.e. churning out beliefs in an illusory God.
Existential DOOM generates cognitive dissonance and humans need authentic reasoning to generate cognitive consonance.
Authentic reasoning is a very useful philosophical tool but it should not be idolized [pride] for its own sake and thus we need authentic reasoning to reason this out in an optimal way. Thus using reason itself to kill reason where it matters.
Well said, you’re critical when it comes to thought. Philosophy burns bright in this man.
We fall under such a conflicted dissonance when not applying reason out of “Existential DOOM”. No?
As you said it’s those survival instincts which will drive a person to cast aside to become inherently progressive. No?
In all this, isn’t that which man has based his whole premise on which will need such reason to have conducted together with others valuable solutions to have come to light on certain topics argued over?
Exactly how is it crude to have that “Bad and false reasoning” though, is it not that we learn from mistake and take them at face value and use that which is Authentic Reason to come to conclusive realizations?
It would have not been such a crude thing to do to churn out beliefs of an illusory God. only because of what I first mentions in this forum. We hold that conflict of beliefs is conflicts of SELF. In a way we try to conclude a reasonable explanation, or a soluble solution to inadequate fault-finding. Not only in who we try and apply these to, when in us also, we all try to come to that one true goal in life, and that’s find, find a certain way to conclude beliefs.
To have no conclusion in the matter we than see ourselves wrong at the door of the matter. As I’ve said it’s not progressiveness to complicate already convoluted streams of information. We have all got to come to a conclusion together.
Yet, how than is Authentic Reasoning a very useful tool yet not able to be prided over as a permissive way to solve such situational conflicts? i don’t agree it kills reason where it matters, yet creates reason where it did matter.
I have to put in a lots of effort, as with the saying ‘nothing come free’.
That existential cognitive dissonance [being programmed to survive at all cost and also at the same time knowing inevitable mortality] is inherent and unavoidable and it create terrible pains at the subliminal level. This is one of the ultimate cause why humans are evolving with the trend of progressive reasoning towards ‘authentic reasoning.’
Note this is represented by real evidence of the physical and mental facts as in the progressive development of the brain with the latest pre-frontal cortex sustaining the faculty of reason.
The evolved faculty of reason cannot get rid of the inherent and unavoidable cognitive dissonance [at least at present to say next 200 years]. What the faculty of reason can do is to generate inhibitors to modulate the primal impulses of that existential cognitive dissonance. Analogy: like building a series of dams to control the wild forces of a big forceful river system.
As observed the progress of the mental faculty of reasoning within the brain and reality is obvious. This is driven by those survival instincts plus algorithms that drive continuous progress [as evident - with side effects which need to be addressed]
Not sure of your point here.
The competence of one’s reasoning comes in degrees from low [bad and false] to high [quality and of higher precision].
Using crude and primal reasoning, i.e.
things must come from something, [an evolved default]
therefore all things must come from something great.
Therefore God;
is logical reasoning but it is not a sound conclusion as God is not verifiable and from another perspective it is an impossibility.
What sustains bad and false reasoning is its conclusions [thought false at one level] is very effective on the practical and psychological level to resolve that terrible existential cognitive dissonance [DOOM] or Dissonance Of Own Mortality.
But the problem is those thoughts based on crude and bad reasoning whilst are useful are also very negative to humanity. Note the evils that are related and inspired directly by some religions, especially ISLAM.
To resolve the evils of Islam [& other religions and secular evils] humans must redirect their attention to more refined thinking and reasoning which dig deep and wide, i.e. authentic reasoning [morally good] as you have proposed.
As mentioned I agree there is great utility from crude reasoning of an illusory God. Kant called this “Pure Reason” thus his famous ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ leading to one concluding a God which impossible to exist in reality but nevertheless VERY useful psychologically.
I agree humanity must all come together driven by the highest quality reasoning [if that is what you meant by authentic reason] to achieve goals that are fool proofs and optimal to the well being of humanity within its time and conditions.
While driving with the highest quality reasoning humanity should not be too clinging to it in terms of pride, ego, emotional, and various psychology as with Scientism and the logical positivists to Science. Worst is the false arrogance of the primal crude kindergartenish reasoning of the theists. Thus the need to keep the highest quality of reasoning [even though very productive] in check. ‘Using reason to kill reason’ is metaphorical, like Lin Chi’s ‘kill the Buddha if one see the Buddha on the road’
It is the ‘purpose’ of survival against greater awareness of threats [etc.] that generate the need for progressive power reasoning of the average person.
It is the “purpose” [not teleological nor ontological] of humanity i.e. the inferred ‘preservation of the human species [interdependent with other living species]’ that enables the need for progressive reasoning power as an emergence out of that purpose.
This is not merely a theory but it is happening in reality and highly evident.
