Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
As far as mathematics is concerned, the word "irrational" simply means "not a number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers".
Great Again wrote:Can the irrational be dealt with in philosophy in the same way as in mathematics?
The irrational is that which cannot be grasped by reason, which is considered "superrational", "subrational", "unreasonable", but not "counterrational", "counterreasonable", "anti-rational", "anti-reasonable".
N. Hartmann speaks of the "transintelligible" and means that which is beyond the reach of human understanding.
Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling calls the irrational "in things the incomprehensible basis of reality, that which cannot be dissolved into understanding with the greatest effort, but remains eternally at the bottom. Out of this incomprehensible, in the proper sense, understanding is born". Schelling teaches that all rule-like, all form arises from the rule- and formless.
Irrational numbers.
If one is to be able to perform exponentiation or root extraction with any rational numbers (in the exponent), it is necessary to introduce new numbers: the irrational numbers. There are algebraically irrational and transcendentally irrational numbers.
The totality of all irrational numbers (algebraic and transcendental) and all rational numbers gives the set of real numbers: "|R".
Fixed Cross wrote:When he has hidden it very well and it is one of a kind.
But dude I think we were performing mathematical functions cognitively (counting) long before we developed an audible language.
it's coherency as a language must have involved fairly accurate judgements made by pre-linguistic humans about their environment and things in it
Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
Meno_ wrote:Maybe the near absolute reductive limit that produces no further identifiable patterns of phenomenal value out of all possible sets of differences.
The reduction of all possible triads of any set into two reduced phenomenal sets of 1 and 2, until all such become indistinguishable.
( where any possible set of 2 becomes 1 at the limit of phenomenal reduction, whereby they appear absolutely indistinguishable or absolutely singularly definitely unique, to the excluded middle
Since this cant happen , but must for a total singular certainty the answer must be yes
( There must be such an X, so that Y and Z must be rational.- (( divisible or different~recognizable)) ).
If not, philosophy regresses toward it's unrecognizable symbolic elements and their formal constructed patterns will disintegrate.
Therefore they must be integrated, virtually .absolutely.
Therefore, the absolute must be contained in the relative.The virtual must be contained in the real and also the other way around.
Great Again wrote:Meno_ wrote:Maybe the near absolute reductive limit that produces no further identifiable patterns of phenomenal value out of all possible sets of differences.
The reduction of all possible triads of any set into two reduced phenomenal sets of 1 and 2, until all such become indistinguishable.
( where any possible set of 2 becomes 1 at the limit of phenomenal reduction, whereby they appear absolutely indistinguishable or absolutely singularly definitely unique, to the excluded middle
Since this cant happen , but must for a total singular certainty the answer must be yes
( There must be such an X, so that Y and Z must be rational.- (( divisible or different~recognizable)) ).
If not, philosophy regresses toward it's unrecognizable symbolic elements and their formal constructed patterns will disintegrate.
Therefore they must be integrated, virtually .absolutely.
Therefore, the absolute must be contained in the relative.The virtual must be contained in the real and also the other way around.
And how should the virtual have come into the real and the real into the virtual?
obsrvr524 wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:When he has hidden it very well and it is one of a kind.
How could he know that it is totally impossible for anyone to ever find it (or deduce it)?
Sherlock Holmes was pretty handy with that stuff.
Why should the real and the virtual "leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs"?Meno_ wrote:Great Again wrote:Meno_ wrote:Maybe the near absolute reductive limit that produces no further identifiable patterns of phenomenal value out of all possible sets of differences.
The reduction of all possible triads of any set into two reduced phenomenal sets of 1 and 2, until all such become indistinguishable.
( where any possible set of 2 becomes 1 at the limit of phenomenal reduction, whereby they appear absolutely indistinguishable or absolutely singularly definitely unique, to the excluded middle
Since this cant happen , but must for a total singular certainty the answer must be yes
( There must be such an X, so that Y and Z must be rational.- (( divisible or different~recognizable)) ).
If not, philosophy regresses toward it's unrecognizable symbolic elements and their formal constructed patterns will disintegrate.
Therefore they must be integrated, virtually .absolutely.
Therefore, the absolute must be contained in the relative.The virtual must be contained in the real and also the other way around.
And how should the virtual have come into the real and the real into the virtual?
They leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs .
Meno_ wrote:And such effectivity is really subliminal holistically an undifferentiated mystical whole that can manipulate the differing levels of energy that can power the keys which open the doors of power.
Levy Bruhl
sees the irrational as prevy to participatory, albeit unknown inter-personal energy.
Taboo originates from such relational matrixes.
Totems are erected as gross symbolic reminders of such.
Great Again wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
For example:
In logic a set of statements is said to be consistent or non-contradictory if no contradiction can be derived from it, i.e. no expression and at the same time its negation. Since inconsistent sets of statements can be used to "prove" anything, even nonsense, the absence of contradictions is indispensable for useful scientific theories, logical calculi or mathematical axiom systems.
Great Again wrote:If it is true that the affectivity state of mood - the moodiness - is the basic event of our existence, something like a basic existential way of the equally original comprehension of world (cf. Heidegger), depending on its way it uncovers the being in the whole (cf. Heidegger), then it is extraordinarily important for the epistemology, because it predetermines the knowledge. It decides for or against knowledge in certain ways.
Great Again wrote:This also explains the question that you, Obsvr, asked once, namely: whether it is not better to orient oneself not according to truth and reality, but according to the prohibitions and commandments of power. Back then, I thought that was the most important question I have read here on ILP so far.
Great Again wrote:The state of feeling is important; but so is the knowledge.
Great Again wrote: I am assuming that feeling is something irrational (which is not the same as anti-rational) and knowledge is something rational.
Great Again wrote: If now the affectivity determines whether it wants to participate in knowledge at all and, if so, decides in favor of certain knowledge, then the power and lobby of knowledge can not resist against it at first, but later it can make the affectivity its subject in order to be able to influence it then, so that the affectivity would be tricked and only "believed" to determe, although in reality it got into dependence on the power and lobby of knowledge.
Great Again wrote:It is similar with the rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. At first, mathematics faces the irrational numbers powerlessly, but then it makes them its subject and integrates them, so that it - mathematics, which sees itself as something rational - gets power over the irrational. Mathematics still understands itself as something rational and has integrated much irrational, i.e. has learned to control it.
James S Saint » Tue May 17, 2011 1:46 pm wrote:Deciding what is or isn't rational involves attempts at being logical after goals are chosen. Rational Debating is nothing like what you see on these forums (that should be pretty obvious). For rational debating, there must be a logic moderator who simply keeps the debate on a logic based track. If a relevant question is posed, it must be addressed. If assertions are made that have not been either agreed to in premise or substantiated by argument, they must be removed or supported. The objective is resolution, not competition.
Rational Debating
Perfect Logical Presentation can be a guide, but the point is that one of the members is assigned the task of ensuring basic logical form in the debating so as to stay away from political jousting as you see throughout the world as well as on these forums. It is a little like a court room wherein the judge ensures that the debate stays not merely civil, but exactly to the point.. and to each point with nothing being left out and time isn't wasted repeating issues or merely playing mind games.
Learning
But beyond the debating process is the issue that everyone gets to see the debating and participate. It is not a competition, but an effort to resolve the most rational decision by any means. Due to this, every member knows exactly why any decision or rule is being made. Because it is always required to be recorded, for generations, everyone gets to see why things were done as they were without the worry of who is trying to politically trick them into something. This causes learning, not only of the current generation, but all generations to come.
In addition, in merely learning why things are being done and why they used to be done differently, the actual use of rational thought becomes instilled due to it being the required process for change, rather than the old passion politics method. Every member is exposed to and practiced in the attempt to be more rational. It is not necessary that anyone be perfectly good at it at any time. They improve and increase in intelligence merely by the practice and exposure. It is a process that inherently restores sanity.
Adaptability
Every generation would be expected to make mistakes in their reasoning. But because it is always documented precisely, anyone can come along and find corrections that might make for important changes, "Do we really have to do things the way we have been?"
But something that is very important is the speed with which a group can adapt to a new situation or newly discovered reasoning. The laws and decisions are being made strictly by the debating process, thus any resolution is immediately law regardless of how long some other rule had been in place. Tradition has no more say than by what the people desire to stick to by choice. Passion voting could take a very long time and is riddled with opportunities for corruption.
Freedom of Choices
Although Rational Debating is the underlying scheme, it must be realized that nothing can be said to be rational until a goal is chosen. The rationale comes into merely how to accomplish the goal. The goal itself is not an issue of rationality unless it interferes with some other goal already in effect. Thus anyone can propose anything as a goal quite freely and if there is no counter proposal, it immediately passes.
Fixed Cross wrote:You're presenting a proper Heideggerian questioning here, nice.
Heidegger through the lens of Nietzsche interprets truth as a value, that is to say as a condition to life, where a life is a self-enhancing, more primarily than it is a self-preserving; life is not static but must self-enhance in order to self-preserve. Truth is conceived as a means to be able to resist the onslaught of chaos, which itself could also be regarded as truth but in such a case truth would not be a value, but rather something to be avoided - truth would be dangerous, damaging.
Fixed Cross wrote:And indeed, in the frequent cases where truth is set against the commandments and prohibitions of power, to pursue truth is to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Great Again wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
For example:
In logic a set of statements is said to be consistent or non-contradictory if no contradiction can be derived from it, i.e. no expression and at the same time its negation. Since inconsistent sets of statements can be used to "prove" anything, even nonsense, the absence of contradictions is indispensable for useful scientific theories, logical calculi or mathematical axiom systems.
I understand very well what it means for a set of statements to be consistent (or non-contradictory) but what does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]