Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinecircastes
Big Questions Small Head
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya Flag
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them?
    #22187845 - 09/04/15 12:29 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

Mental illness? Brain damage? Other brain disease? Or is it part of the risk of thinking on one's own terms?

Look at even moderate Islam, and fundamentalist Christianity. How can people actually absorb this stuff and live their lives around it?

But on a more personal, relevant level, what about low self-esteem stemming from irrational images of oneself?

Irrational ideas about what it means to be educated, what society is about? The value of material things? There are rational and irrational ways to value material goods...

How do we think?

Where do we learn?

Is it important to socialise to prevent irrational gaps in logic in one's own personal mythology, ideology or philosophy? But then isn't that just conformity (if we take it to the extreme)?

:strokebeard:


--------------------
My solitude...
My shield...
My armour...

TESTED
WITH
FULL
FORCE


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBozko
Thread Ruining Autist
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/14
Posts: 596
Loc: USA PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: circastes]
    #22187921 - 09/04/15 12:46 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

I try to listen to my demons the way I listen to my eccentric friends. Usually these "irrational ideas" mean well, but are just way too heavy-handed in approach, you know? 

Jehovah is a tamed demon, the Artifact that confuses itself for the creator because he runs the show. People get a lot out listening to this demon's teachings and interpolating what he says with their own lives. Others are fundamentalists.

I think this is what it is like to try and interpolate between wild, biological whims and polite society. Your monkey brain says "CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE", and a totally appropriate response to that idea is to dismiss it. But at some point you have to realize you may need to request a three-way.


--------------------
ShadeOfDeepPurple said: I guess you don't get shamanism yet by the very fact that you describe a psychedelic as Mexican.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 3 days
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: circastes]
    #22188700 - 09/04/15 03:47 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

Technically there is a difference between irrational and non-rational. Irrational thoughts are corrupted, as it were, by an irruption of the unconscious into consciousness. The unconscious does not operate linearly or logically. Note how whole realities morph in dreams. Or look at mental illness such as an organic condition that was illustrated by the title of a book by the late Oliver Sachs" The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

Non-rational can suggest conditions that are trans-rational in the sense of transcendental. Rudolph Otto spoke to the non-rational mystical experience which he referred to as the Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans (the Fascinating and 'Awful' [Awe-Inspiring] Mystery). There, the notion of non-rational might better apply than irrational, but Jung didn't acknowledge a superconscious, so for him everything positive and negative derives from the unconscious, and he did not think we could experience transcendental consciousness (too bad he never took the mescaline which was available in his day).

Regardless of the terminological differences, I suppose you are asking about unwanted irrational thoughts. I have something of a cancer phobia (having had a couple of kinds of skin cancer, one of which was potentially life-threatening), and so, when certain kinds of pains occur, I all-too-often have fearful, irrational thoughts of cancer. "Oh No! Elbow cancer!" :eek: It doesn't help when certain doctors play upon common cancer fears. I've had a dentist and an optometrist do this. So MY irrational fears are a corollary of standard death anxiety. I know the little dibbuks well by now. As I get older, I get closer to the cavalier attitude: "If ya die, ya die." :shrug: Not exactly there yet, but I'm better than I used to be.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: circastes]
    #22188825 - 09/04/15 04:22 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

I think a thought is very much a way for the brain to 'take a shot.'  Our minds are highly imperfect, and a lot of times it's a miss -- the thoughts are either incorrect or impertinent.  I believe that is the nature of the human thinking mind to its very core.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemuckamuck
Stranger
Registered: 07/20/15
Posts: 187
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: circastes]
    #22189270 - 09/04/15 05:58 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

I watched 'The Road' recently. Shooting yourself might be irrational, but not if the alternative is being eaten alive by cannibals. Maybe Christianity and Islam were exactly what people needed to cope in a certain place at a certain time... I think even the craziest ideas start to make sense if you consider the wider context in which they occur. The trick is to be willing to change those ideas and adapt as the need arises.


--------------------
:hank:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: muckamuck]
    #22189789 - 09/04/15 07:34 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

I would agree with Markos, that "irrational" somewhat broadly signifies any mistaken mode of reasoning.

My own suggestion would be that the origin of irrationality, is not like the origin of the idea also, which is easily accessed as something not making sense. For example, a criticism of irrationality clearly is not based on there just being some pre-existing slate, of rationality, or rational order to the universe, some necessary way to act or think... right?

I think our principle of reason speaks in itself. All reasoning is based in a principle of contradiction, and  this is clearly not simply a a way of being "in itself" but a dependent or conditional origin of meaning.

It could also be said that the belief that there are such easily accessed and intelligible absolutes, is something that people all over the world of all different cultures, old and new, have derived in such a principle. Today, for instance in America, an intellectual and sociopolitical climate can become problematically polarized, on such a basis.

Hence I would suggest that the conventional question here could be clarified also by a fundamental question of the notion of principle we would come up to, in this way. i think the principle is not likely of being "correct" or morally right, but of being apparently able to reflect on that principle, maybe, and this would become a basis or origin in general to speak of so long as we're clear. I mean, let's be clear; a critique of that orderly, normative, standard of existence is something that could be critiqued just as well as irrationalism, and many of these collective tendencies, maybe most of all towards rationality, are often times pretty "irrational" in their own ways, even while it is well to reflect on principle, clearly.

So when you or anyone in particular are talking about the arising or origin of irrationality, the first thing I'd say is how that is arguably a broader notion than "what is contrary to reason." A principle of contradiction, has no origin, no subsistance, and no basis in itself.

Irrationality as it arises, would thus be grasped as the tendency to take arisen sensory impressions, (memories, mental content) and from a point of meditation, organize them in thought, and express them in a way that is or is not based in reality. Naturally the question has been if thought resembles reality. In bearing away from a strict consideration of principally logical reasoning "in itself", that is impossible to find, to find an origin we'd have to look to where indeed all reasonings arise in another sense, of sense experience itself.

Namely, this critique of irrationality today (say in american intellectual sphere) is both constructed and broached, in a way which is mainly referring to a fantastical element, where something is not "making sense". "Sense" which we make, (such as in "propositions" or "arguments") is found according to an implied frame of reference in the world, and this is namely both empirical (based on experience) and what we make of that.

I think this manner of reasoning is common enough, even if the particular neologism (German: sinn) is not looked to directly so often. If what is being referred to as irrational is anything more than just a logical contradiction, or an error, this notion of critique would fit. The sense we make, is suggested because it is being intimated with a point of reference, and while this is not explicit, it is embedded in our intellectual dialogue thanks to 20th century analytic philosophers like Frege, who for the first time suggested that we reflect on language (for paradigmatic example).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference

If this seems tedious, or neologistic, I'll point out exactly how the question relates to contemporary philosophical stakes, and is likely framed that way. Going into background willmake this response a little longer than it needs to be, but will also hopefully have the virtue of clarity.

In finding language possibly encapsulating sense, or "sense" that we "make" embedded in language, which is to say, along with that, the suggestibility of our sense experiences having a seemingly prescribed frame of reference to things, propositions and arguments became particularly normative to philosophy. Making sense is the basis of that parlance which is common enough. This was a turn toward language (as it was the implied intelligibility or logic, or "sense" of what anyone said, that was to suggest a basis of discussion) while at the same time this particularly represented the empirical considerations that were particular concern to the british empiricists at the turn of the century, in finding a world based on sensory experience in a particular way.
Namely a broad anglo american "analytic" based philosophy turned towards the way we use language, while in the continental rationalist school (mainly germans)  thought turned toward phenomenological considerations, which was a completely different way of talking about sense.  This split was arguably due to the culmination of nationalistic tendencies.  This split division of approaches runs down to today.

Reflection on the sense of propositions or arguments, (ostensible reasonings) was directing thought as most directly as possible indeed to empirical commitments. It became a very conservative basis for how everything that is thought or spoken of would have to be reducible to discrete experience, to be talked about at all. However for the most part things lightened up after the second world war. The suggestion of implied reference in sense experience, is also arguably pragmatic, and philosophers began arguing this point, turning on the strictly institutional view, and that to is also something that is still being carried out, down to today. It is what brings me to the somewhat delicate point of clarification I am attempting to speak to, that the conventional form of reference, in the sense we make, may be posed but not necessarily (or appropriately at all) as an absolute.

You can see how seriously this convention can be taken, at face value, for instance when this point of reference was suggested as a state of affairs. Indeed in a way, that a state of affairs is what dictates most conversation and discussion, is kind of trenchent basis.

"In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer."

While a state of affairs refers to a world as it is though, it is important that the way the notion was arrived at was only through the recursiveness of the conventional intelligibility of langauge. It is not so much that the world must be a certain way, but to talk about the world, we must agree that it is a certain way, and be constructive. That is namely the only way we could really arrive at such a notion of how a situation satisfies the way propositions about it, would be true.  This is the suggestion of the necessity of some conventionality in our human ways of being, and yet that necessity, could be clarified and thought about.

The pragmatist asserts that the suggestibility of an implied point of reference is not quite as strong as we may have supposed it to be, (say in a particular historical period of cultural crisis) according to what early analytic philosophers said. Clearly we are talking about the delicacy of talking about the world as a situation, which satisfies propositions, somehow, and I believe in that, in the covert provisions of "making sense" this is another way of seeking the sufficient principle of reason. We undoubtedly may say the same thing, that the principle of making sense, according to implied frames of reference, is going to be conventionally dependent, and that convention can't be asserted as absolute.

For example, you can say "the sun rose" out from behind the poplars, or the sun rose over the horizon, and you would likely be making sense, if what you are talking about would be guided by something simple, like when it is best to play badminton. To say that in order to play badminton, we should look for the right angle of light, and be aware that the earths rotation must reach a certain degree, would also make sense, particularly if there is some pragmatic reason to be clear about in analytics. That pragmatic could course arise, indeed, and what would follow would be more or less conventional pedagogical description of cosmologies. The precise description, would perhaps likely be asserted in contradiction (likely just for complexity) to the frame of reference which says the sun simply rises in respect to the mountains the trees or us ourselves. In describing any irrationalism, in those points of view though, I believe, one would have to describe a situation in context, where it was practical to know this more fundamental truth of cosmology, because these may all communicate the same essential thing, in view to the practical activity though.

With some experience maybe, you could even miss any of the fun questions about who or what circles around who or what, and just wait until "three PM" when you already know it would be best to play badminton. And that to me would be the essential analogy for contemporary Anglo American philosophy. If there were finally the suggestion of principle of truth as a virtue in itself, and what people suggest by its consolidated reference, knowledge that has this ease of communicability, and reference, would perhaps be that three pm is a good time to play badminton. Do not begrudge it this fact!

So in answer to the question, I think there is arising of sensory impressions (empiricality), but there is no simple one dimensional parallel of the arising of the sufficient principles of reason (rationality, discussion of causes of things), albeit, even while this is still how we have any intelligible notion of physical reality. "Making sense", or being constructive baring upon becoming an institution, is a syntheses of these priorities (of empiricism and rationality). The discussion is what the 20th century bore at first as a very conservative thing, which eventually became more open to the pragmatism, although as a culture, we have something like a hinging door, that speaks to this whole affair, which found sense in some conventionality of frame of reference, from its closure back to the appropriate openness.

Pragmatism relects ways of being in the world in the somewhat inflatable terms of propositional reflection. Here are two basic definitions.

Quote:

Pragmatism: An approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.





Quote:


Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870.[1] Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.[2] Instead, pragmatists consider thought an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action.




Irrationalism would in these terms, which I would endorse, be considered in context Circastes. This bears on the question of irrationalism, because in one case, irrationalism may be an approach within a shared convention (which I mean is for the most part consensually shared), that verges toward being impractical, and may be critiqued. Another critique of irrationalism, somewhat more projectional, of bases in logic, and challenging everyone to be on the same level, when there are quite incommensurable ways of being. Then, there is war, undoubtedly, which all I'll say, is something which can't be justified with the typical tin horn virtues.

I think we would benefit ourselves to talk about our conventional ways of existing, in a positive sense, as opposed to viscious relativistic swinging towards absolutes. We can be forebearing. We may look for the first principle of intelligibility, of logos, which is of contradiction, and acknowledge what it means to think this way is itself conventional, and cannot get below itself to true being, but only allows letting being. This must always open into a more fundamental truth of letting what is be true, as much as letting truth guide being.

I particularly like the way thr Madhyamaka buddhist Nagarjuna speaks of the notion of there being two truths, of conventional truth, and ultimate truth (emptiness of all entities and beings), and how intimately they relate.

But my answer is that pragmatism is the safeguard, you could say even the guardian, in the platonic sense, of reason. Pragmatism is also the sole intellectual tradition which is uniquely American, and not derived from other traditions and affairs, and we should understand that tradition. Pragmatism is also the broadmindedness, which suggests the diversity of our culture. We should opt to reflect on our conventionslity as something conditional, rather than just being given over to industrial utility and materialism which is unfortunately also what Americans are known for, in our surrendered independently oriented pragmatics. The massive headless assembly is also the uniquely American "problem".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Where do irrational ideas come from, and how to safeguard against them? [Re: Kurt]
    #22190165 - 09/04/15 08:47 PM (8 years, 4 months ago)

Here is a summed up version of the longer response. Principles of understanding are not "thrown" in our head, even though we find this idea of the principle ("why") of things that ostensibly happens in our heads, like one billiard ball striking another.

On examination, there is no sufficient basis or beginning for the turnings of reasonings. We can only get back to the point of there being a principle of contradiction, standing for what we hold to be true "in itself". I think this indicates a dependent conditional basis for reasonings.

When asking for the arising or origin of irrationality, formally it could either be found in a principle of "logic" or the complex and perennial question of how those "billiards" are set in motion.

We do not regard the world itself according to fundamental principles, say, of cause (metaphysical ascriptions), so how can we in what we think of it? The terms seem to be born conventionally, the intelligible world reflects these forms and principles, and the reasonings we have, as we reflect on the world and attribute this. This is not to say there is nothing to that.

But I tend to think that in what we find in certain scope of human rationalizations and reasonings, there is already implied frame of reference of working in some terms, in motion. There is nothing that fundamentally "stands firm".

This is why rationale, when you think about it, ultimately can't suggest anything but these conditional human means and ends. Hence irrationalism would be considered a formal error, that we are all pretty well together subject to, if it is considered an error at all.

I think the old tautology of Aristotle well expresses the way of both implicitly working in means and ends, and sharing them:

Quote:

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.




I think we are always already thrown to conditional means and ends, as a point of reference, and some of the dialogue about being correct and right, (I mean the typical browbeating) is usually incorrect and wrong, and just someone getting angry about their point of reference. And again, when there is a real fight of "incommensurate" or conflicting values, it isn't fought with tin horn virtues like "rationality".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What Pragmatism Means RebelSteve33 957 5 02/21/03 12:05 AM
by Nomad
* An example of using the principles of logic.
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,609 29 07/24/03 12:32 AM
by Sclorch
* Pragmatism Vs. Religion chemkid 1,444 12 09/29/02 08:00 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 18,803 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Cultural Convention and The Matrix ekomstop 2,101 18 09/15/17 08:00 PM
by redgreenvines
* Being Pragmatic Huehuecoyotl 1,061 19 07/18/04 04:40 AM
by deafpanda
* Pragmatic SpecialEd 628 3 05/30/04 02:47 AM
by Positronius
* Spirituality and Pragmatism Swami 818 13 11/10/04 11:38 AM
by Moonshoe

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
542 topic views. 2 members, 9 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.