ok…i have noticed in this forum and in myself, that when giving reasons for or against something…say murder…we tend to make them as rational, selfish and ‘factua;’ as possible…
without resorting to things like : ‘‘pity for the other person’’ and stuff…
cause those are feelings and sucn an argument can be dismissed as perspectivism or whatever.
but i think that reason tends to be moved and controled by this feelings quite often, so if a person feels sorry to kill someone, they will make up rational arguments such as ‘’ you can get caught’’ against it.
or ‘’ society woudln’t work without jail’’ and stuff…
but a person who likes to kill may come up with an argumen that says ‘’ it’s a way of social selection in a nihilist world where all the beasts and impulsive ppl have to survive instead of the smart people and civiliced ppl since there is no absolute and no point for them to be the ruling class’'one joker would say.
or whatever… maybe the latter isn’t half as rational as the first.
but see how feelings influence reason?
feelings are in the domain of the irrational… close to intuition…
reason is in the domain of being and the rational…
ok and reading about heiddeger in the other post… i think that the domain of the irrationa has power over the domain of the rational.,
since the rational is a subset of the irrational.
in other words, we are a subset of God…
so since god can fuck us up however he wants to… i think the only moral thing to do as a human is to dislike God.
cause they are like impulses…they come from subconscious incstincts …
and the subconscious (to me) seems to be the domain of the irrational…
and the ground for the conscious and the rational…
the contrast…
and reason is a closed system… an ourboros… so the ourboros is IN the irrational…which gives rise to it cause it is more ‘‘complete’’ let’s say…
than the rational…
so…omg i can’t believe no philosopher hs ever thought of this…
nd if one has please tell me who he is cause i wanna read him…
my guess is nietzche did… but since most dismissed my post they won’t wanna admit a philosopher spoused the idea cause it will sound like i made a point.
ok so…the irrational is more powerful than the rational…
of course i am on the side of reason, as every human should be cause we wouldn’t be able to survive in irrationality…
ergo…MADDNESS…
lsd bad trips anyone?!!!
it’s so obvious… TOO obvious…
and I am even scared to get into more detail.
only…some advice 2 every1… fight for the rational…against the irrational.
fight for the will to become…don’t let the beyond win, eventhough it’s more powerful.
yeah
the chocolate fireman idea is hilarious…
but i didn’t mean he dismissed it…i meant everyone for not responding…
in fact, the only ones that didn’t dissmiss it where him and u!
ok you can view emotions as rational…
but what underlies your reason? your…i dunno motives?
that’s what i mean…
the STRINGS…
the puppet can think he is autonomus.
Well, I am far from anything resembling a psychologist… but ‘strings’ dictating my actions is an idea that I feel is a bit over-hyped. I am autonomous.
In any case, having the thought, feeling or action is quite enough to keep me interested in life. ‘Why’ strikes me as less important.
Much regarding instincts and emotions are little but more primative, much less conscious and much less effective modes of choice, understanding and destinction.
Naturally, emotions and other sources of irrationality effect thought greatly. But what I think you’re getting at is our (i.e. humanity’s) tendency to submit reason to the service of these irrational source more often than we like to admit. In fact, this thread reminds me of some studies I came across (damned if I could remember them) that showed we often make choices first, and then invent the rational behind them afterwards. I remember a study in which a subject was hypnotized to leave the room whenever he heard a specific word (I forget the word). After coming out of hypnosis, someone uttered the word and he got up and headed for the door. When asked where he was going, he said “I’m thirsty. I’m getting a drink.” So he convinced himself that he was thirsty, accept that rational as the “true” reason for his getting up and walking out of the room. I find that very interesting.
Yes a critique lacking in reason holds much value