DranoëlApr 21, 2017
i also hesitate to vote marine le pen because she says she wants to bring back order and i would love that she brings it into my room lmao.
joking she's a racist/homophobic/sexist far right candidate i hate her
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard Careful that she doesn't use last night's shooting to her electoral benefit. From what I've heard, she wouldn't stand above it.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz Yeah i've seen it too i hate her so much i fear the fact she could be our next president she's fascist
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard I do so hate to sound like a smug little green fellow, living in a swamp, but one should be careful with "hate". It tends to muck up one's rational faculties.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz I dont believe in rationality and free-will bro but i understand what u mean
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard Why ever not? Rousseau and Voltaire would be spinning in their graves if they heard that.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz When I was ypunger I was a true fan of those dudes I have read "Du Contrat Social" of Rousseau when I was 15 and I agreed so much to what he said. Then I discovered Spinoza dude and everything became more clear in my very own philosophy. I think we're driven by our passions and that we're all conditionned. We're all differents in the way we have been conditionned but there is always a passion behind a pseudo-rationnality.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017

@Leonard Fair, but in my experience, life is rarely binary. Just because passions push us, doesn't mean that rationality doesn't guide us. Or can't.

I once made the likeness that passion is the fuel. Rationality is the engine. Well, that time, I argued morality was the engine, but the allegory still works. With poor fuel, you won't get far even with a mastercrafted engine. But without a good engine, a potent fuel will probably destroy everything. You need both to get anywhere with either.

Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz I understand what u mean bro rationnality is a thing but "pure" rationnality does not exist. U said it yourself : its fueled by passion. I also think that she's constructed w/ what we experienced, read, lived. We are constantly forging our own paradigm wich drives our "rationnality". So yeah mathematic and all stuff help thinking but can always be interpretated differently. If you can classify the "machines" of other ppl why would you be more "true" ?
Show threadJPS_Lindberg

@Leonard Purity is a charade for pregnant virgins. And the alpha and omega for reductionists.

I'd prefer thinking of rationality as a tool. Unlike what Rousseau and his cronies did. And the more tools you have and have mastered, the more adept you will be. The better care you take of your tools, the sharper, more efficient they will be when you need them. Forsaking a tool is the same as crippling yourself. Well, in my opinion.

Apr 21, 2017 at 3:01pmWeb
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz So how do u define "rationnality" ? As mathematic, academic stuff, that helps thinking ? But the same number can be interpretated differently. If "rationnality" helps interpreating, I think its only the word ppl use to legitimate there own paradigm. Paradigm is always forged with what we feel, the passions. As you can see, at the end, passions always drive our way to think. Then, rationnality dont exist as something that is universal. Thinkin there is 1 rationnality is a ground for
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz totalitarism.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard Mind you, I'd have the same argument with someone claiming that rationality is the be all-end all trait.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard I don't concider it an ideal. A political or scientific one. It's a tool. You could argue the same with... passion, really. Schopenhauer mde the case that everything is subjective. Arguing that rationality is more important than anything else is just as correct/wrong as arguing that passion is more important than everything.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017

@Rosencrantz (Omg you quoted Schoppenhauer i want you to know that i also like his way to consider things.)

Okay, then rationnality is the name you give to the way we interpret things.

And I agree with you ! We always use some form of logic to understand the world around us.

But this logic isnt universal, and because it's not, then why do you call it a "tool" ? If it can be handled in different ways, its because of passion (aka "the person").

THEREFORE : everything is linked with passion.

Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017

@Rosencrantz What I mean w/ "rationnality dont exist" is "pure rationnality can't exist because we always think w/ passion"

I think we understand each other on this point, right ?

Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard I think "pure reason can't exist because we think with passion" is just as true as "pure passion doesn't exist because all our passions are tempered with reason".
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz But where comes the reason from ? From what we lived, for what experience push us to consider as a reason. Reason isn't absolute.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017

@Leonard Passion isn't terribly universal either. Passion isn't the same as the person, in my regard. Passion isn't universally translatable, no more than reason. Passion isn't... well, I concider it a rather sloppy amalgamation. A sort of combination between "feeling" and the "force" behind that feeling.

And while I've taken Sam Lake's "there are things in life yuo cannot chose; how you feel", I feel that your statement is oversimplifying it.

Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz Dude I totally agree with it but its conceptual like why are you explaining such a poncif
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017

@Leonard I just reacted poorly to someone claiming that they didn't believe in reason. If that's wholey true, it's kinda scary to me.

I would find it hard to trust a person that is unobjetionally slave to his/her/its passions. Just as I'd have a hard time being able to relate to a creature that is ruled in totality by it's reason.

Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz Rationnality can't have a conceptual definition, therefore i think it does not exist as an absolute thing. Nothing's objective. There is always a paradigm. This thing you call "reason". We're all the slaves of our passions. Passions arent only "feeling", its the way we've being taught to feel.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard I agree that we are all influenced by our passions. I know for a fact that you do not have to be it's slave.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz The fact "you're not the slave of your passion", isn't it only that things that happened to you pushed you to think differently, not linked with your emotions ? Isn't it a passion that pushed you to act and think like this ? The obsession with "being objective", isnt it a "passion" ?
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard That's a bit reductionist. When you pick things apart into it's base components, out of it's context, things tend to lose the... well, their nature. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz What I mean is : rationnality exist, as a thing that is different for everyone, dont worry, i agree w/ what you mean : thoughts must be channeled. But this chanelling is due to other passions taht push u organizing your thoughts in a way or another. The experience you have. Your memory. Even how much and what you've eaten.
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz What I mean, is that our thoughts are all due to the things we've lived and read that have forged what we think with.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017

@Leonard Absolutely. Our perception is shaped by our experiences. Most assuredly. And our passions are sometimes... well, not as easily deconstructed. I'd almost call them elementary parts of the sentient condition. BUT, passions without... ways to channel them is... inhuman. Inhumane. Not anti-biological, but certainly just as dangerous as... as conceptual "pure reason".

Gotta go. Love to continue this later. I'll be back to it.

Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz Bises, as frenchies like me uses to say :D
Show threadDranoëlApr 21, 2017
@Rosencrantz I feel injured with your accusation about my "oversimplifying" point of view. I told you I thought just like you before (and thats almost the Doxa, basically). Please dont despise what i think, because it doesn't have to be "true" or "false". Its metaphysical. A critic and a debate is valid, but u cant have an axiological jugment abt what I assume to be my opinion.
Anyway.
I just wanted to tell that i've evolved in my thinking, and so i understand perfectly what u say.
Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 22, 2017

@Leonard I never intended injury. If that is the effect, I'll apologize for the effect. However, I shan't apologize for my p.o.v. I do not despise your p.o.v., but I WILL seek to problematize it.

I'm drunk now. But I'd like to finish with a superbly penned sentence that's apt to the occation;

"There is no room for '2' in the world of 1's and 0's, no place for 'mayhap' in a house of trues and falses, and no 'green with envy' in a black-and-white world"
/Ravel Puzzloewell, Planescape Torment

Show threadJPS_LindbergApr 21, 2017
@Leonard
And I would think rationality is the skill, the tool, which helps us interpret. Interpreting faulty conclusions or incomplete conclusions isn't the fault of rationality. It's the fault of the person. Don't blame the tool for it being mishandled. It's not the hammer's fault that a carpenter fucks up your rocking chair