prompt: "if we admit human life can be ruled by reason, than all possibility of life is destroyed."

question: do you crush the limitless and seemingly at random expanse of life by trying to fit the world's machinations into a walled construct? is the search for reason in unreasonable things in essence man following the rabbit into a neverending hole? is reason in all things even attainable, and if not, what do we stand to gain by searching it out? will reason lead us to an ultimate place of supreme understanding or is it a feigned attempt to grasp at control in an otherwise vast, lawless world of which we have none?

and in something that's been weighing on my mind of late, is sole reliance on reason simply a coping mechanism?

im not calling you out ceebs, fyi.

No.


A PhD, employment at a think tank, self-satisfaction, or some combination thereof.


Oddly, I find a "...so it goes" worldview to be as comforting and reassuring as it is grounding.

I love the title of this thread.

BTW, Parch, how come you don't post with an caps anymore? It's like you and Kris have simultaneously switched that habit.

i alternate based on nothing at all.

NO REASON ZOMG

I'm sure it's almost certain that the levels of understanding we desire are unattainable, but the search for that knowledge is the most fun part.

I'm always shocked when people ask this question.

Think of where we'd be and what we wouldn't have if we had never decided to 'search it out'.

so it goes is definitely comforting and reassuring.

Thodoks... have you read any existentialism? Your "so it goes" attitude seems to be getting more prevalent, and I think this sort of philosophy might suit you personally.

If I have, it wasn't on purpose. Are we talking about Camus and what not?

This first question is very easy to answer. Life is not limitless and we encounter the limits of where our free will can take us every day. "Crushing" this consists solely in discovering what the true limits of our possibilities are, thus dispersing the illusion of true freedom.


This question, on the other hand, doesn't seem to deserve an answer. If we can't know everything, we should not endeavor to know anything at all? That doesn't seem like a very productive philosophy.

Beyond that, you seem to be assuming absolutely that some things are unreasonable. I posit that philosophers and the like are forever in the pursuit of determing what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, and that when a particular thing is deemed unreasonable by nature, inquiry usually stops there. There are literally hundreds of pieces of philosophy I could reference to prove this. What I am saying is that most "professional thinkers" do NOT follow the rabbit into the neverending hole. In fact, most of them don't believe there is a hole at all, we only arrive at nonsense and absurdity by applying reason to things which are unreasonable.



There are two statements here which bear essentially no relation to each other. One is that the world is lawless, and I would respond by saying that is blatantly false. The second is that we have no control over the world, which is certainly debatable, but either way there is a large divide being knowing a thing and controlling a thing. I can't tell if you mean to conflate the two only because your question is so vague, and I must assume the vagueness to be deliberate.


Is your desire to diagnose the use of reason as a form of compensation for a perceived failure of our human nature actually indicative of your personal search for a rationalization of your desire to dismiss reason as a determinate part of your life? I don't want you to answer this. I just want to illustrate the absurdity in trying to pin down a complicated psychological question with such an oversimplification.

these questions are loose guidelines, buff, meant to open up wider conversation. i do not accept nor deny any of those questions as my own beliefs, they are simply meant as fodder for conversation starter.

btw i don't necessarily prescribe to any of these ideas, im just lobbing out things. this is not about me. i actually lean quite heavily on reason, as it were, but it does not mean i avoid questioning it.

Well, that's fine. You asked, I answered. Without more specific questions I can't give more specific answers.

no i mean i want discourse obviously, and i'll get to some of your points soon, but it seems like a lot of your answer is to pin some of this on me personally, which is obviously not what this is about.

I don't mean to do that. I only argue "against you" in so far as you are the one who presented questions, and some of your questions contained implicit arguments. I only answered your questions in the same capacity with which you asked them, if that makes sense.