Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

More on Reason.

More on Reason.
April 04, 2014, 03:13:16 PM
Descartes was never going to get anywhere trying to define what real was, because he was reasoning what real was.
Real is not reason. The ego/intellect doing the reasoning is not real. It is an abstraction between the real and the perceiver.
Either one sees this or one does not.
To the intellect, only it is real.
Known also as ego, it sits firmly between the real, and the judgement made as to what 'real' is.
People ask what the meaning of life is, because they are unable to see one.
The question is absurd to anyone who can.

Others may be unsure whether or not they exist, but I have no such problem.
Others may be unsure whether of not anything else exists, but I have no such problem.
Others may be unsure if there is any meaning to life, but I have no such problem.

There is meaning to those who can see it.
There is none to those who can not.

Re: More on Reason.
April 04, 2014, 05:33:33 PM
He limited what could be real to what could be quantified. That's the supreme error undergirding modern thought.

Re: More on Reason.
April 04, 2014, 05:38:46 PM
Supreme errors have a nasty habit of being uncorrectable.
By the time the damage they do is noticed, it is almost always fatal.

Re: More on Reason.
April 04, 2014, 06:06:00 PM
From what I gather, you have both summarized Friedrich Nietzsche.

Re: More on Reason.
April 04, 2014, 07:13:26 PM
OMG. It's even worse, then, than I thought!

Re: More on Reason.
April 05, 2014, 09:02:03 AM
Reason = Perceiving reality in terms of order, structure and 'what we can be sure of''.

There's a lot of use in this: To perceive reality as something orderly means the ability to interact with this order: To develop tools, farming, technology, medicine... everything to do with science.

Reality, as it is, isn't necessarily something to be used, though. It can be used - but that doesn't mean that it should be.

If we perceive reality strictly as order, we push everything unruly and disorderly to the side, and dismiss it as somehow less real than that, which we understand to be rational. Thus we create chaos - cause the disorderly aspects of existence will still be there, even if we try to set them aside and to 'see through' them.

Reason: To divide reality into order and chaos - and to assert the order over the chaos.

The order is dependent on the chaos, however - the more we seek to assert the order, the more chaos will manifest. One cannot 'win'.

If we step back, and behold reality strictly through what is - not with regards to how it can be of use - then we see that the chaos and the order are in perfect balance. That's beauty - and beauty is neither rational nor chaotic, as much as it is order sacrificing itself to the chaos, and vice versa.