https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&p=2807070#p2807070
There is no confusion, because I have spoken about the suggestion that
one should start from the mathematical definition (read my text about
it), in order to come afterwards to a philosophy of the irrational.
Great Again wrote:
This mathematical definition is the best starting point, in
order to understand the irrational also altogether better. **
**
I never used the definition of the mathematical irrational,
i.e. the one for the irrational numbers, together with the
linguistic (lexical) definition or the usage in the common language.
@ Magnus Anderson.
The irrational is a cognition, thought, speech or action without the
participation of the rational. More precisely, it is something characterized
by no or insufficient use of reason and by a transcendent (not
transzendental!) use.
Platon wrote:
We cannot be spared, for the purpose of defense, to examine
closely the proposition of our father Parmenides, and to force the non-being
that it is in some respect, and on the other hand the being that it
is not.
....
Lightly, it seems to me, Parmenides has spoken to us, as well as in
general all who have ever dared to divide the being, to determine it
according to number and kind. What each of them tells us seems to me
like a story, as if we were children.
....
Since we ... are at a loss, you must make it sufficiently clear to us
what you actually want to designate by using the expression 'being'.
For you obviously have known this for a long time; however, we also
believed this before, but now we are at a loss. So teach us first about
it, so that we do not imagine that we understand what you say, while
quite the opposite is the case.
....
But the philosopher ... must ... say: what is unmoved and what is moved
is the being as well as the universe.
....
Not ... is the being movement and standstill together, but something
different from it.
....
But we have not only shown that the non-being is, but we have also shown
what appearance the being of the non-being has.
....
Do not come to us ... that we put the non-being as a counterpart of
the being and thereupon dare to say that it is. With an opposite, whether
it is or is not, whether it is reasonable in itself or completely inexplicable,
we have not been doing with it for a long time.
Deutscher Text, aus dem ins Englische übersetzt worden ist:
Es kann uns zum Zwecke der Verteidigung nicht erspart werden,
den Satz unseres Vaters Parmenides genau zu prüfen und das Nichtseiende
zu zwingen, daß es in gewisser Hinsicht ist, und andererseits
das Seiende, daß es nicht ist.
....
Leichthin, scheint mir, hat Parmenides zu uns gesprochen, sowie überhaupt
alle, die sich je an die Teilung des Seienden gewagt haben, es nach
Zahl und Art zu bestimmen. Wie eine Geschichte kommt mir vor, was jeder
von ihnen uns erzählt, als wären wir Kinder.
....
Da wir ... nicht weiterwissen, so müßt ihr uns genügend
klarmachen, was ihr eigentlich damit bezeichnen wollt, wenn ihr euch
des Ausdrucks »seiend« bedient. Denn ihr wißt dies
offenbar schon lange; wir glaubten dies allerdings früher auch,
jetzt aber sind wir ratlos. Also belehrt uns zunächst darüber,
damit wir uns nicht einbilden, wir verstünden, was ihr sagt, während
doch ganz das Gegenteil der Fall ist.
....
Der Philosoph aber ... muß ... sagen: das, was unbewegt und was
bewegt ist, ist das Seiende wie auch das All.
....
Nicht ... ist das Seiende Bewegung und Stillstand zusammen, sondern
ein von diesem Verschiedenes.
....
Wir haben aber nicht nur aufgewiesen, daß das Nichtseiende ist,
sondern auch gezeigt, welches Aussehen das Sein des Nichtseienden hat.
....
Komme uns ... keiner mit der Rede, daß wir das Nichtseiende als
Gegenstück des Seienden hinstellten und daraufhin zu sagen wagten,
daß es sei. Mit einem Gegensatz, ob es ist oder nicht ist, ob
es in sich vernünftig oder ganz und gar unerklärlich ist,
haben wir es bei ihm schon lange nicht mehr zu tun.
Platon, Der Sophist, 241d, 242c, 244a, 249c, 250c, 258d, 258e
(S. 81, 83, 87-88, 105, 109, 135, 137).
Great Again wrote:
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:
»Which book is it?« **
**
Let me guess. **
**
And how long will it take you?
Great Again wrote:
The irrational is a cognition, thought, speech or action without
the participation of the rational. More precisely, it is something characterized
by no or insufficient use of reason and by a transcendent (not transzendental!)
use. **
**
I agree. The irrational is the unreasonable (illogical), is not or not
completely comprehensible by the ratio, is not accessible to the logical
thinking, is that which the rational simply or yet almost completely lacks.
I have not read everything here. But I think it's
up to you whether you want to talk about belief or something else. The
title of this thread is: Can philosophy integrate the irrational
as mathematics can (**|**).
So this thread is not only about irrationality, which means that you can
just as well talk about integrating the irrational into the rational,
and that is exactly what has happened here so far, at least judging by
what I have read. According to the title of this thread, I would say that
it is primarily about the integration of the irrational into the rational
through philosophy, and this integration can be compared to the
one that mathematics has done with the irrational numbers.
And currently freedom is approaching zero.
Why don't you (**)
just stick to the title of this thread?
Besides, the relationship of the rational and irrational
numbers as subsets of the set of real numbers has long been pointed out.
I guess you didn't read that.
Moreover, the title of the thread pretends that the point is not to
integrate the rational into the irrational, but to integrate the irrational
into the rational. Just read it.
Magnus Anderson asked for a definition for the irrational
(**).
That is why I gave him this definition (**|**).
So it is just a definition for the irrational. Wikipedia gives
almost the same definition:
Wikipedia wrote:
Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without
inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action
or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional
distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively,
to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful,
or more illogical than other more rational alternatives **
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 (**|**).
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 Obsrvr, why the universe exists, if it exists, or,
especially for you, Obsrvr, 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? (Leibniz). 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).
Can we say that it is something like a philosophical
experiment or a metaphysical experiment?
If you don't mean it satirically: yes.
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.
Rage is also a good example of irrationality. But dealing with rage,
again, can be something rational, and it should be.
In the West, however, rage is also a taboo. For it the eros is all the
stronger: the greed!
Some will now ask for definitions again.
Define the word »again«.
@ Magnus Anderson. **
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.
Wikipedia wrote:
Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without
inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action
or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional
distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively,
to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful,
or more illogical than other more rational alternatives **
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.
In the OP I gave the first definition. To which you replied that you
did not understand it (**).
Then I gave you a second definition because I wanted to help you (!),
whereupon you again replied that you did not understand it. Then I gave
you a third definition because I wanted to help you (!), to which you
again replied that you did not understand it (**).
Then I gave you a fourth definition, because I wanted to help you (!),
whereupon you again replied that you did not understand it (**).
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.
Obsrvr wrote:
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). **
This has nothing to do with the question I wanted you to answer.
Great Again wrote:
Explain to me once, Meno or Obsrvr, why the universe exists,
if it exists, or, especially for you, Obsrvr, why there is affectance,
if it exists. **
**
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).
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.
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.
I know that premise perfectly well. And it is a rational
one - very sympathic. But you have no irrational argument.
|