Interesting timing - 
Tucker Carlson discusses corruption and irrationality being promoted in the US -
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG37azMVwl4[/youtube]
The promotion by anti-American globalists of corruption and irrationality in the US is a “rational” tactic as far as they are concerned. Forcing the peasants to obey irrational dictates is rational training to get them to obey without thought or objection.
Well, in most cases, the word “rational” and the word “irrational” are defined as mutually exclusive. In other words, if something is rational then it is necessarily not irrational and vice versa. Take mathematics as an example. Are there numbers that are both rational and irrational? There aren’t, right? That’s why I asked for a definition. If you’re not using words the way they are normally used, the need to define them, and do so clearly, is significantly greater.
That seems to be merely saying that there are feelings that are rational and feelings that are irrational. I agree with that. Not every feeling of hunger is rational. Sometimes, you really should ignore hunger and let it die (instead of acting upon it.) That would solve the problem of obesity in the modern day world (but it seems like noone cares about that.)
A set of feelings (such as the set of all feelings of hunger) is not a type of thing that can either be rational or irrational. Instead, it’s a type of thing that can consist of exclusively rational things, exclusively irrational things or a mix of rational and irrational things. Individual feelings, on the other hand, are either rational or irrational – they cannot be both rational and irrational.
@ Magnus Anderson.
We are in disagreement. But that is not a bad thing.
@ Obsvr524 + Magnus Anderson.
In my last post, I have (1.) not spoken of rational and irrational numbers, but of the rational and irrational in general, in reality, (2.) already pointed out several times that we have to separate the mathematical and thus the theoretical realm on the one hand and the practical or real realm on the other hand (we also do not say that mathematics and biology are the same thing), (3.) left the intersection of the rational and the irrational unnamed for very certain cases.
Not all poems are directly accessible to rationality, some not at all. But there are ways of hermeneutics, of understanding, which can lead to them becoming rationally accessible. But there can remain an realm that can not yet be assigned to the realm of the irrational and also not yet to the realm of the rational. This assignment is made by the rational, and sometimes it succeeds in taking something away from the realm of the irrational, i.e. in enlarging the realm of the rational (in other words: something was understood), but sometimes it does not succeed. And this realm, which can be assigned not yet to the irrational and not yet to the rational realm, that is the intersection of the rational and the irrational.
What about the situations?
Someone killed his wife out of hunger or out the “set of all hunger feelings”.
The whole world is not only rational, the wohole world is irrational and rational and some or many things can not (yet) put in one of the two realms, because it is not (yet) decidable, where to put it. Some may be rational, some not, but then - later - they are just the other way around. You have to wait. The capability of waiting has gone lost. What you can’t decide at the moment, decide it later. The intersection is a good thing for those who can (still) wait.
What is harmony?
What is “rational harmony” for Trump?
What is “rational harmony” for Biden?
What is “rational harmony” for a 10 years old child?
God?
The not (yet) decidable belongs to the intersection.
We do not know who possesses the absolute truth - in former times this possession was reserved to God. And today? To the mass media! To the “man” (Heidegger), i.e. to the inauthenticity!
Instinct, intuition, feeling, love and much more - all either rational or irrational?
No inability of people in the assignment to the rational and irrational?
Is this inability of assignment rational or irrational?
•
We are all Gods?
Your diagram and your words suggest that there are things thar are both rational and irrational. In other words, the intersection represents things that are “both rational and irrational”. “Not decidable”, however, represents things that “might be rational or might be irrational”. When you can’t decide whether something is X or Y, that does not mean that that thing is both X and Y.
My diagram and words suggest that there are things that are both rational and irrational in the sense that they cannot yet be assigned otherwise, but must be one of the two. I.e.: They are not otherwise assignable (as I have said several times). They belong to the (set of) reality, like the rational and the irrational, and they will also - sooner or later - find their place exactly in one of the two, but cannot do it now.
The intersection is something like a transit camp, because everything is in motion, is historical, is dynamic, because something always comes in and comes out. So the intersection must remain.
No misinterpreted rationality?
No misinterpreted irrationality?
What about the recognized (objectum)?
What about the to-be-recognized (objiciendum)?
What about the (still) unrecognized (transobjective)?
What about the unrecognizable (transintelligible)?
No transcendence?
No transcendentality (in the sense of Kant’s transcendental philosophy)?
No being-in (in the sense of Heidegger’s existential philosophy)?
No being-in-the-world (in the sense of Heidegger’s existential philosophy)?
The available 4 categories are -
A Venn diagram would have no overlapping or intersectionality or union.
I don’t think you can have “mistakenly labeled” as a legitimate category.
And again without a specified purpose, all processes are “Unknown”.
All items (non-processes) are “Not Applicable”.
All processes that meet the specified goal are “Rational”.
All processes that do not meet the specified goal are “Irrational”.
Any given decision is either rational or irrational and it is so regardless of what people think. Joe might think that a decision is rational, Mark might think that it is irrational and Susan might be uncertain; the decision itself, however, is either rational or irrational. If it happens to be rational then Joe is right, Mark is wrong and Susan is neither right nor wrong (since she has no opinion.) Even if everyone is uncertain, the decision is still either rational or irrational. Let’s not confuse what something is with what people think something is. It’s not possible for a decision to be both rational and irrational just like it’s not possible for it to be neither rational nor irrational – it’s simply a logical consequence of the way these words are defined. That said, you are either wrong or you are simply defining words in a different way than I – and most other people I know – do. And that’s why I asked you to provide clear definitions (:
I am not sure but I take it that you’re asking the following question:
Do you believe that there is not even one decision that was made at some point in the past for which there was/is at least one person in the world who mistakenly classified it as either rational or irrational e.g. a rational decision that was mistakenly believed to be irrational?
My answer to that question is: no, I don’t believe that.
“Yes” to the first three but “I don’t know” to the fourth because I don’t really understand what you mean by “unrecognizable”. I am divided between “Yes” and “No”.
If I didn’t know better I’d be tempted to swear that post was written by James.
The interscetion is a dynamic one. It is historical. There is motion in it.
Especially for you, Magnus, I have drawn the arrows, indicating the movement, in the diagram. See:
Who denies the history and the movement of the world and therefore also within the logic, who doesn’t want to perceive that not always everything can be assigned only as either rational or as irrational, that one is obviously not of this world.
It is a fact that about many things it cannot be said exactly whether they are rational or irrational despite the fact that these things belong to something that can be assigned to either the rational or the irrational. Many things can only be evaluated as either rational or irrational in retrospect. You have brought an example yourself: “The set of all hunger feelings”. The term “hunger feelings” means two things: hunger and feelings. What are feelings? Something rational or irrational? And: Which feelings? 100%?
Who decides what is rational and what is irrational? This “who” are humans, and humans are only rational to a certain extent, irrational to another (far greater) extent. How this is distributed is not known exactly.
Homo sapiens is rational according to those people who have decided that homo sapiens is rational (=> sapiens). The statements of those who have decided that homo sapiens is rational already show that not everything about this species is rational. And not all individuals of this species are rational in equal shares.
Is your stomach rational?
Yes? To what percentage?
No? To what percentage?
And hunger?
[tab]Do you decide on this alone?[/tab]
@ Obsvr524
Unfortunately, all set diagrams, as well as the Venn diagram, are static, i.e. they always assume an actual state. In reality, however, everything is in motion, everything is history.
My diagram is a dynamic diagram that takes history into account.
Venn is not a god for me.
Ok that explains a lot. Apparently you do not believe in objective reality. You seem to believe that reality is man-made.
And that makes you one of those “irrationals” that you would like to see “integrated”.
We can still explain the irrational in terms of objectivity.
What are your brief thoughts on this obsrvr524?
What kind of nonsense is that?
That is your nonsensical prejudice - largely consisting of irrationality. 
I see what becomes, what is and what will become. That has to do with reality. Reality and history (development) belong together. There is nothing irrational about such a statement.
I never said that reality is made by humans, I said that humans decide (in case of doubt) what is known and what is unknown, what is rational and what is irrational; but that humans decide does not mean that humans make all the reality. One is a matter of determination of knowledge, the other is reality. This human behavior is part of the reality, of the history. History and reality belong together - that’s what I said. This does not make me someone who denies reality. On the contrary! You don’t want to know anything about history and therefore about reality.
I see what has become through humans. This, my insight, has nothing to do with irrationality, except in the sense that I take irrationality into account in everything rational, because I do not ignore irrationality, because it is so strong. I have said that several times. But you probably don’t want to or can’t understand that. The irrational is more in you than you think. You should allow it. That would be healthier for you.
You are not the first who constantly sanctifies the rational and thereby demonizes the irrational and therefore does not notice how irrational that is.
You are like a little boy who has lost his toy, “rationality”, and is now crying. Crying has a rational and an irrational component. But how exactly that is distributed, no one knows. One can only assume estimates and probabilities. The crying belongs to the reality, however, it is not simply rational or simply irrational, but it is both.
…and perhaps a lack of information makes it more difficult to explain things rationally. I understand the idea behind what you are saying here…
We can explain smaller things in a more rational sense because it is easier to apply logic to small things.
When things get immense as they are related to human beings and separately the universe, however…,
…when can not easily apply the full array of logic necessary to arrive at logical conclusions when trying to view the full picture.
Estimates and probabilities are not necessarily irrational, however.
Objectivity refers to the idea that everything is what it is - NOT necessarily what anyone thinks it is. Both Magnus and I have been trying to explain that to Great Again by saying that a process (at any one time) is either rational or not. Nothing can be both rational and also irrational. His response has been that perhaps we mislabeled it, misunderstood it, or just don’t know. He offered a Venn diagram showing a region that is both rational and also irrational.
The objective point of view is that how we label it is irrelevant to what it actually is. But he hasn’t accepted that answer. So when he said that a Venn diagram is static while reality is always changing he revealed that he believes that the diagram that he stated to be the real case concerning rational vs irrational is itself static and so not the changing objective reality of the subject. He is saying that the diagram is both true and not true at the same time and dependent on our accuracy and knowledge.
All of that implies that he is not accepting objective reality - else how we label things would be irrelevant. When someone doesn’t accept objective reality they are claiming man-made reality.
It has nothing to do with prejudice at all. You are claiming that some things are what they are and also what they are not at the same time because we might not know what they are. The point is that what we know is irrelevant to what they are - that is objective reality and what your diagram was supposed to be representing - although obviously in error.
And now your response sounds exactly like this -