01-14-2015, 07:37 AM
1) that reason and logic are abandoned without understanding (as an analogy, the poet that attempts to break the rules of poetry without knowing the rules of poetry. This may seem like a false analogy, but if one doesn't understand why the God/Rock paradox is a paradox then it is hard to get past that).
Generally as rationalism is such an all-encompassing theory, it leaves no room for anything else once one has become conditioned to it. So it is quite possible what you are asking for is impossible. Rationalism demands from us certain sacrifices. These sacrifices relate to giving up the possibility of all things (limiting possibility to what rationalism says is possible), and limiting what can be to the subset called rational, or logical, whose main tool these days is the scientific method. Example: the fairies that both of my girls used to see when they were little. Even today they can recall what they saw, they are simply unable to see them any more. Rationalism would demand that we believe there are no such things as "fairies". If one excludes the possibility that such a thing could exist, for that person that becomes a fact.
2. "Because this kind of thinking is directed at some non-experience."
As you're not going to define what "non-experience" is except to say read this book, I think I will pass. In the future if that is the kind of statement you want to use, it might be best not to make a statement at all. If it takes an entire book to describe this "non-experience" idea then it is probably not something worth reading. Any idea worth it's pay will always be elegant, it will be simply rather than complex, but not simplistic. Although there may be details about it to explore, the basic concept is brief and elegant. example: Cogito Ergo Sum
"The more complex the expression of the basic concept the less likely it is to have value." That one is mine, it's a little long but I do not claim to be Descartes. God damn it Jim, I'm just a country poet.
dale the non-philospher
Generally as rationalism is such an all-encompassing theory, it leaves no room for anything else once one has become conditioned to it. So it is quite possible what you are asking for is impossible. Rationalism demands from us certain sacrifices. These sacrifices relate to giving up the possibility of all things (limiting possibility to what rationalism says is possible), and limiting what can be to the subset called rational, or logical, whose main tool these days is the scientific method. Example: the fairies that both of my girls used to see when they were little. Even today they can recall what they saw, they are simply unable to see them any more. Rationalism would demand that we believe there are no such things as "fairies". If one excludes the possibility that such a thing could exist, for that person that becomes a fact.
2. "Because this kind of thinking is directed at some non-experience."
As you're not going to define what "non-experience" is except to say read this book, I think I will pass. In the future if that is the kind of statement you want to use, it might be best not to make a statement at all. If it takes an entire book to describe this "non-experience" idea then it is probably not something worth reading. Any idea worth it's pay will always be elegant, it will be simply rather than complex, but not simplistic. Although there may be details about it to explore, the basic concept is brief and elegant. example: Cogito Ergo Sum
"The more complex the expression of the basic concept the less likely it is to have value." That one is mine, it's a little long but I do not claim to be Descartes. God damn it Jim, I'm just a country poet.
dale the non-philospher
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.