User Controls
Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
-
2017-09-17 at 9:46 AM UTCfor what else might offer to explain why man chooses the rational over any other way of being? Some think that the propositional calculus lets us remove ourselves from analysis and through rules make ourselves impartial but this fails to explain motivations towards impartiality in the first. It's only when man accepts that he is a slave to the passions than he can see the bias lurking in that of the humean endeavors most vehemently defended as unbiased.
FORSOOTH! -
2017-09-17 at 12:46 PM UTCUhhh... what?
-
2017-09-17 at 12:50 PM UTCI hardly think "man" as a species chooses to be rational. In fact most of the time, people are highly irrational. But i guess you could somehow explain that as "slave to the passions" as well.
-
2017-09-17 at 12:51 PM UTCStop acting like that made any sense, lol.
-
2017-09-17 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by RisiR † Stop acting like that made any sense, lol.
I'm high, anything I say makes sense. I hope.
Originally posted by Sophie I hardly think "man" as a species chooses to be rational. In fact most of the time, people are highly irrational. But i guess you could somehow explain that as "slave to the passions" as well.
Sure, but when you say "people are anything but rational" this comes with an edge of disdain. Scarcely anyone wouldn't claim to adhere to general principles of rationality, even if they're really bad at acting rationally. Which just makes the point. Even when people demonstrate exemplary logic, really think about arguments and try way harder than almost anyone does to be unbiased they don't do it for the sake being rational itself. Why would anyone be motivated to be or appear rational when they weren't if the thing that would propose to motivate that behavior was absent in the first place?
Human rationality can't justify itself in the same way all formal systems can't. Indeed, formal propositional calculus is fascinating among formal systems in that it contains no axioms, literally every theorem is hypothetical. The reason one learns to reason is nothing short of an initial belief that it will somehow satisfy some baser need. It's only much later that the hubris touches the fringes of our minds which suggests that logic was somehow written on the wall of the universe. -
2017-09-17 at 1:38 PM UTCYeah, people act first, then rationalize their behavior after the fact. Science has proven this.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Free will is an illusion. People don't "choose" to be rational or irrational any more then they choose to be hungry, or to need to poop.
Post last edited by Open Your Mind at 2017-09-17T13:42:03.339372+00:00 -
2017-09-17 at 1:41 PM UTClol what a bunch of pseudo intellectual sounding bullshit
i fucking hate this site, you're all poseurs and cowardsThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 1:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm high, anything I say makes sense. I hope.
Sure, but when you say "people are anything but rational" this comes with an edge of disdain. Scarcely anyone wouldn't claim to adhere to general principles of rationality, even if they're really bad at acting rationally. Which just makes the point. Even when people demonstrate exemplary logic, really think about arguments and try way harder than almost anyone does to be unbiased they don't do it for the sake being rational itself. Why would anyone be motivated to be or appear rational when they weren't if the thing that would propose to motivate that behavior was absent in the first place?
No you don't do it to appear rational you do it in order to learn some sort of truth.
Originally posted by Lanny Human rationality can't justify itself in the same way all formal systems can't. Indeed, formal propositional calculus is fascinating among formal systems in that it contains no axioms, literally every theorem is hypothetical. The reason one learns to reason is nothing short of an initial belief that it will somehow satisfy some baser need. It's only much later that the hubris touches the fringes of our minds which suggests that logic was somehow written on the wall of the universe.
I don't know about propositional calculus but are you trying to tell me logic isn't FUCKIN MENTAL to the Universe -
2017-09-17 at 2:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie No you don't do it to appear rational you do it in order to learn some sort of truth.
What does a child who can solve a simple logic puzzle know about truth? It's pretty well acknowledged that buying books to put on a bookcase to imitate the cultural meaning of being well read is a real phenomenon in our society. People who are bad at rational thought but maintain the self-image of being rational are, by their class definition, the ones bad at being rational. But why would we suspect any greater purity of intention from those who are good at being rational? You need your whole socratic dogma, seated in utopian ionian and airy symbolism of Greece, to make the idea of truth as something worthwhile in itself make sense. You need to drink that hemlock and understand that sublime moment of defiance before it's possible to imagine yourself part of some external objective reality. There is no theorem of logic that says "pursuing truth is good".I don't know about propositional calculus but are you trying to tell me logic isn't FUCKIN MENTAL to the Universe
Yes! Where on earth do you propose to find empirical evidence for formal logic? Its success as predictive survival strategy? Any TC language can be interpreted to model our universe in absolutely any circumstance "logic" can, but no more can logic claim to be some inevitable subsystem of the universe than can an overhyped game by a bald dude with self-esteem issues. It's not fundamental, it's a cultural strategy that was successful and nothing more. Ask yourself "why is affirming the consequent a fallacy". We could imagine a system of logic where it's a valid logical maneuver and every theorem in traditional systems of logic remains valid. There is no natural reason this system of rules is true and other aren't. We only take it up because it's what our ancestors did, because someone at some point convinced you thinking logically had some kind of benefit.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 2:30 PM UTC
-
2017-09-17 at 2:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What does a child who can solve a simple logic puzzle know about truth? It's pretty well acknowledged that buying books to put on a bookcase to imitate the cultural meaning of being well read is a real phenomenon in our society. People who are bad at rational thought but maintain the self-image of being rational are, by their class definition, the ones bad at being rational. But why would we suspect any greater purity of intention from those who are good at being rational? You need your whole socratic dogma, seated in utopian ionian and airy symbolism of Greece, to make the idea of truth as something worthwhile in itself make sense. You need to drink that hemlock and understand that sublime moment of defiance before it's possible to imagine yourself part of some external objective reality. There is no theorem of logic that says "pursuing truth is good".
Yes! Where on earth do you propose to find empirical evidence for formal logic? Its success as predictive survival strategy? Any TC language can be interpreted to model our universe in absolutely any circumstance "logic" can, but no more can logic claim to be some inevitable subsystem of the universe than can an overhyped game by a bald dude with self-esteem issues. It's not fundamental, it's a cultural strategy that was successful and nothing more. Ask yourself "why is affirming the consequent a fallacy". We could imagine a system of logic where it's a valid logical maneuver and every theorem in traditional systems of logic remains valid. There is no natural reason this system of rules is true and other aren't. We only take it up because it's what our ancestors did, because someone at some point convinced you thinking logically had some kind of benefit.
Nigga' you is fucking with me. -
2017-09-17 at 2:35 PM UTCDON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID, I MEAN HEMLOCK!
-
2017-09-17 at 2:38 PM UTC
-
2017-09-17 at 2:40 PM UTC
-
2017-09-17 at 2:40 PM UTC
-
2017-09-17 at 2:43 PM UTC
-
2017-09-17 at 2:49 PM UTCOk.
The concepts of logic and rationality are both man made and therefor have that very problem of bias to begin with. The entire frame of judgement is limited. I think I agree with you but what's the point? Do you think your idea isn't bound to that? It is. No idea can be evaluated without judging it within the frame of human logic. Mhmmm.. I see, I think. There is probably no solution to that problem. Bias is fundamentally ingrained within the concepts. -
2017-09-17 at 2:51 PM UTCWhat does aesthetics mean in this context, though?
-
2017-09-17 at 3:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by RisiR † Ok.
The concepts of logic and rationality are both man made and therefor have that very problem of bias to begin with. The entire frame of judgement is limited. I think I agree with you but what's the point? Do you think your idea isn't bound to that? It is. No idea can be evaluated without judging it within the frame of human logic. Mhmmm.. I see, I think. There is probably no solution to that problem. Bias is fundamentally ingrained within the concepts.
It is, definitely. Any argument that seeks to justify reason or argument in rational terms itself is comic. There's no meaningful logical analysis to be given, which is why aesthetics is interesting.
Originally posted by RisiR † What does aesthetics mean in this context, though?
One project of aesthetics, among several, is to explain in some sense human preference. It's by preference that we justify logic, we see the cultural image of truth and then long for it, logical discourse our tool. By studying aesthetics we study why we prefer this mode of being over others, I argue that in no small part does the drama of Socrates as a defiant champion of truth, and the cultural struggling for truth that followed him, govern our notion of truth. If we can do nothing else in the study of aesthetics we can at least understand we could have formed preferences for other ways of thinking, other possible systematic modes but also non-systematic ones, and understand that no argument conjured in this mode can justify it over the another.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 3:49 PM UTCA good real life example is well, everything in physics but I like Atom models. The visualization of Bohr's model is always wrong because it can't be vizualized but there is no doubt that there is an underlying bias for stuff that kinda makes sense and looks cool over the "real" truth that isn't graspable at all.
Do you have some calculus examples?
I like the idea and I feel like it could help getting a deeper understanding of things as they pertain to us because at the end of the day that's what matters, not the actual truth. (Trust me, it hurts to say that.)
