Magnus Anderson asked for a definition for the “irrational”. That is why I gave him this definition ( ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3#p2816886 ). So it is just a definition for the “irrational”. Wikipedia gives almost the same definition:
However, this thread is not only about the irrational, as Sleyor Wellhuxwell also pointed out, but it is mainly about how philosophy can manage to integrate the irrational into the rational. As an example I mentioned mathematics, which can be a pattern for integration, but of course is not in a 1:1 relation to philosophy. However, all this can already be read in the Opening post and in the further course in many of my posts.
I have also given several examples. Only you don’t seem to accept them.There is no rational explanation for why Ludolf’s number exists or for the fact that this number corresponds exactly to the amount/value to which it corresponds.There is no rational explanation for why Ludolf’s number exists or for the fact that this number corresponds exactly to the amount/value to which it corresponds. There is also no rational explanation for why there is gravitation, if there is gravitation. This and more why-questions I have posted. Also the love I have mentioned as an example there ( ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5#p2816838 ). There are innumerable examples. There are more examples for irrationality than for rationality. Irrationality does not mean simply nonsense. Explain to me once, Meno or Obsvr, why the universe exists, if it exists, or, especially for you, Obsvr, why there is affectance, if it exists. In the end, one ends up in almost all cases with God or with the question why in the universe (the “nature”) everything is set the way it is set (compare “constants”) or with the question: Why is there being and not rather nothing? One cannot give rational answers to these questions. Therefore, one should consider the irrational. If one never tries it, then one also cannot know whether the irrational can help us to understand everything in all better (thus: rationally, as the mathematicians do).
Just look at this globalistic chaos called “Corona”, in which the irrational seems to have won. Seriously: The irrational dominates more anyway. You are lucky if you live on an island called “the West”, because the rational had been ruling there for a long time. This now seems to be coming to an end.
But we cannot fight this irrational simply with rational. That is not enough for reasons that I have already addressed here almost countless times. The conclusion is that we must study the irrational, insofar as we can, and try to integrate it, which means that we must try to make it serve us. The rational has only this one possibility if it wants to stand against the irrational, which is on the rise everywhere.
I know what you mean. We are facing a planned dumbing down - the irrational is globally on top anyway - books are no longer read, only the nonsense on the internet, which is contaminated more and more with irrational stuff. And in addition to that, the culture in which the rational has been overdimensionally strong now sees itself exposed to an irrational power and does not know how to defend itself against it, especially since demography also contributes to the fact that this process runs exponentially.
Although not an accurate statement, That is the kind of example we have been asking for.
The “examples” that you have been giving have been within maths. We understand those without examples -
We are familiar with those kind of numbers. What we were asking for was something specific outside of maths that would clarify to us what irrational things that you would like to see integrated. You have finally supplied us with one example - “gravitation”.
Obviously you have not read Mithus’ book or James’ posts on those every issues. James went to extreme detail as to exactly what logic leads to the necessary existence of all that exists - including gravitation - why it does what it does - exactly how it works - exactly why it even exists (even why space exists). He was extremely into the whys for everything. But he was also an extreme rationalist - to the point of giving rational definitions for “God” (many of them - although not depending on those in his explanation of “natural phenomenon”).
I’ll now dig up some of James’ posts from this board (also revealed in Mithus’ book) to show you how James "integrated the [seemingly] irrational [or unexplained] into rational thought concerning gravitation - I think he even made a thread on that one — give me a few moments —
I suspect the word “unexplained” would have circumvented a lot of the confusion.
That is another example that James explains with his Physics of Psychology (that I am currently studying and also in her book).
Yes, that’s the modern definition of the term “irrational number”. Basically, it’s a number that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In this sense, the word “irrational” has nothing to do with the human faculty of reason and everything to do with fractions.
At the same time, I’m told that’s not what the term initially meant. Originally, expressions such as (\sqrt{2}) where called “irrational” because Ancient Greeks refused to “think of these lengths as numbers”. Exactly what that means is not clear but my guess is that they simply thought that such expressions are oxymorons.
So we already have two different meanings of the word “irrational”. We have the modern mathematical meaning of “(of a number) not expressible as a ratio of two integers” and we have what I believe to be the older one which is “(of an expression) containing a contradiction”. And if we go outside of the realm of mathematics, we can quickly encounter a third one, which is “(of a decision) less preferrable compared to all other decisions that were available at the time”.
Great Again has provided a number of definitions and hints but they don’t paint a clear a picture.
[tab]
[/tab]
He’s also drawing a parallel between irrational numbers and irrational people. The two are supposed to be related somehow but he does not make it clear how.
I don’t know why that looks so fuzzy - it didn’t the last time I watched it.
He also goes into why mass particles exist in other videos.
As to why affectance exists -
Most briefly he explains that people get to choose what ontology they wish to use for whatever need they have. It isn’t an issue of which is true - but rather which is best suited for your purpose (referencing relativity and quantum physics as examples). Then he offers a new ontology based upon the inarguable fact that -
He also goes through the details of why propagation of affectance happens and the why’s behind everything else he mentions - a very very thorough bloke.
As to why anything at all exists -
He goes into the maths in detail but is over the top for this thread I think.
So the unequivocal answer to the title question is - Yes - been done already it seems. Apparently - through close scrutiny - James has answered all of those formerly unexplained (“irrational”) questions by finding the underlying logic that causes literally all things. Why he posted them on This board is still a bit of a mystery that I am working on. But perhaps in his Physics of Psychology he will reveal that too.
Everything can be rationally explained it just depends on how much you know about everything. A grand unified theory is just a doorway into everything it is not really a detailed explanation.
Even with a grand unified theory, there is still much work to be done.
Nothing(ness) ever changes yet everyday is a new day - “Your God (or James’ “MyGod”) is your current situation - not yesterday’s situation - never changing the fact that it is always changing.”
The examples you have given as “my definitions” are not in every case my definitions and also not always definitions (do you always use definitions when you speak? No, you use meanings, and the meanings refer to morphemes, words, sentences and whole texts, which can be understood without definitions)). You could have noticed that too. And you did not mention that the one definition I gave you is the same that Wikipedia gives.
Besides, Magnus, you are not a little child anymore and should have your own definition of “irrational”. And if you had one, then we wouldn’t have to spend days arguing about a definition. So I think you are getting at something else or just don’t understand what this thread is supposed to be about.
You said about the “modern definition of the term ‘irrational number’” that "the word ‘irrational’ had nothing to do with human ability to reason. And this is wrong, because the word “irrational” would have disappeared from the expression “irrational numbers” long ago, if it had nothing to do with the irrational in humans. The “irrational numbers” are irrational!
I do not have to go into this again and again, because I have already done it often enough. Anyone with a normal everyday mind knows exactly what I mean. Also, even the representatives of the Deep State would immediately answer to my question what it means to “integrate the irrational into the rational”, that this is what they do all the time, because from their point of view they also do nothing else than to bring the people to reason, because they believe that the people with their irrationality otherwise do the wrong thing. Whether these representatives of the Deep State are right about that is a completely different question.
1.) The definitions you quoted do not differ from each other as much as you claimed. They basically say the same thing.
Others, which you have also declared as “definitions”, are none at all. There is not even the word “irrational” in these “definitions” quoted by you. You have proceeded very amateurishly.
2.) The cause for the fact that I have modified my first definition by the other three each a little (and only in such a way that they do not leave the core of the definition) is you, Magnus. Yes, you yourself.
Then you accused me that those definitions " don’t paint a clear picture". So you accuse me of something for which you yourself are the cause.
I was only trying to help you when I gave the further definitions, which, as I said, do not deviate much at all from the core of the first definition in the OP. So indirectly you accuse me of having helped you.
All in all, nothing good what you are saying.
3.) If you do not understand the meaning of the word “irrational”, not understand the definitions I gave and all of them (also the one from Wikipedia) state that the irrational goes above, beside and below the rational (see figure), then you either have problems with understanding itself, so you should learn to understand (I recommend then a hermeneutics course), or you aim at a goal, e.g.: discrediting another member of the “community” ILP.
Once again, my definition of “irrational” agrees with the one Wikipedia gives.
I followed the rules of the game and tried to help you because you did not understand something. You thank me by reproaching me for my helpfulness.
You probably do not like my resp. Wikipedia’s definition because you reject the irrational and therefore ignore it. Many do that. They want to keep it under control - if possible immediately. But this does not work. And by the way, that was the reason why I opened this thread. The irrational is not totally controllable - and certainly not immediately.
Yes I agree but then that does not reduce below the line of that covers the perimeters of the ‘forest’ where the question oft posed ‘what isl’ normal"may be espaused.
It appears it has become a slippery slope, and objectivists may decry the depth to which they may land in accordance with any quantitative analysis.
This has nothing to do with the question I wanted you to answer.
It is about the why question: why is there affectance? How does affectance come into the universe? That is the question.
I give in my own words the definition of “affectance” given by James S. Saint:
“Affectance = ultra-tiny influences or changes in affect potential. … - Affectance: - Physics: Ultra-tiny, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses, where “positive” is electrically positive potential and “negative” is electrically negative potential.” The other definition is the one you quoted last:
"Existence == that which has affect or potential to affect."In fact, if you rearrange this sentence a little bit, it tells us:
“Affect or potential to affect is existence”.
So James was an existential philosopher. And I too would like the topic of my thread to be understood in terms of existential philosophy. Please do not say now “I would not say that James was an existential philosopher”. That is irrelevant. But my question remains: Why is there such a thing? So I am not asking now about affect, affectance, potential to affect, but about the “is”!
Has James given an answer to this? (I have, as I said, not read the whole Mithus book).
An existential philosopher asks about the “is” (the “==” in your definition quote). And in doing so, he touches on a subject I have pointed out many times here. It boils down to God, or questions like this: “Why is something at all and not rather nothing?” (Leibniz).
“Explain to me once, Meno or Obsvr, why the universe exists, if it exists”
The universe exits, if it does, because if it didnt, then we would or could be here talking about it. This simplicity may offend some, but really calls to bring down to real means more then trying to prove that Methus’ book was read or not.
The fact is, and a priveable existential fact that esse est percipii is now considered a Proven mandate until otherwise rebutted.
This is a long held meta-phisic, where the length of even one day has stretched even up to almost the limit, while the perceived length of one 24 period has developed a calculus of many variables, actually shortening the same temporal evolution.
The universe’s existance, even without defining the terms, could not have bought the romulus and Remus co-construction of evolution without a temporal overpass of this coupling.
Therefore, I can stretche it to a coexistently evolved calculus, that center on a middle that is it’s vanishing point.
There is no existence without perception if this essential enomaly
Apparently you didn’t understand my response (there was a lot to it) -
Then followed by -
Now would you like for me to post his maths on the subject to display his reasoning as to WHY it is logically impossible to have non-existence? It is a bit heady.
So you are saying that the universe exists because our perception exists.
A critic would now say that this is wrong. And he would ask you for proofs of your assertion which you cannot give clearly and speak instead only of a “mandate” which “applies as long as it applies” (until the counter-mandate namely).
Note: I am playing the “critic’s lawyer” here. My opinion on this is another matter.
I know that argument. And I already read the text you quoted three or four months ago.
Now my questions:
Do you agree that there is death?
Do you know what death means?
Do you agree if someone says that nothingness is not the only alternative to existence?
Are the alternatives, if they exist, all irrational?
And if they are irrational, then your answer should actually be that there is no rational alternative to existence. We talk or should talk about the relation between the irrational and the rational. There are under circumstances innumerable alternatives, but all of them are irrational.
What I am saying is that it is very difficult to fight the irrational because it is so powerful.
“Credo quia absurdum est” (“I believe because it is absurd”, means that "I believe because it is contrary to reason (i.e. because it exceeds the capacity of reason).
But you should continue like this, because you can actually come the irrational only with rational arguments.
