Can /his/ defend the emphasis on reason and logic in the modern

It can help define your ends. Who would stop worshiping Moloch and start worshiping Yahweh if they believed absolute faith was the most important thing ever?

>>2561510
I suppose however the comparison of the pair would be clinical and irrelevant to the individual without inherent preset bias towards one outcome or the other.
While logic is extremely important the pressence of irrational, preprogrammed or nurtured traits seems relatively ignored in how the west now approaches the human condition.

>>2561447

its dificult to understand this, the brain quite literaly rejects this, especialy in males, since nothing makes useful sense to the logical mind if it dosent somehow make logical sense, but other than banal 2+2=4 bits of absurd info about reality, nothing actualy makes any logical sense

the rattional brain, or, whichever parts of it perform the cognitive functions that are involved in being rattional, or at least being capable of being rattional on occasion, are truly tools, biological mechanisms the function of which is to help with solving problems, same as opposable thumbs or eye muscles, but they are very powerful tools, so much so that they often dictate how a organism approaches all of reality, by the logic of ''if all you got is a hammer...''

this results in a sort of paradox, namely that, as the logical mind attempts to approach every thing as a sort of problem to be solved or understood, as a thing to be systemised and controlled or in some other way physicaly or conceptualy neutralised or processed, the human being is damned to eternal frustration since reality is made up of absolutely nothing rattional, truly solvable or even meanigfull beyond basic crude physiological necesity that the rattional mind exists to service

in a sense, if these are 'means', there are no corresponding 'ends', not realy, not in the longrun, since in all of existence there is no rational, logical 'end'

so the 'means' themselves are pseudorattional, not just cause of that whole discrepancy, but moreso because the organism itself is a irrational byproduct of selfless chaos, and the brain is no different, so the forces that drive this frustration, this autistic need to mentaly grasp objects and reduce them to something logical, is basicaly just nternal neurosis, negation, inability to accept shit as is, mainly because it is shit

rattionalisation is then just a basic psychological defence mechanism, even a healthy one at times

the only other way is to die inside

Rationality is more objective and thus better suited for society today.

However, with the rise of populism, this might soon change. Tradition is not necessarily a good thing, and clinging on to tradition can impede (and has done that) progress in a society. Instinct can be beneficial in some cases, but why follow it in the case of human interactions? Example: gay people. Some people get carried by their instinct and say they find it disgusting, and that's fine. But we cannot base policies simply on instinct. Faith can also impede progress, but it can also be very beneficial for society at large (think of stability, centres of learning in the Medieval Period), but I believe it has outlived its usefullness and today causes more division than unity. However, faith can help cope with the rising question that is also posed in the picture: 'Why do anything at all, when nothing has any meaning or reason behind it, except for just being?'. If you believe, the answer is easy: God. This can help being more productive and aid progress for society.

>>2561528
>suited for
In what sense?

>we cannot base policies simply on instinct
Why not?

So if theology raises productivity and agency but also division and violence should it supercede rationality which is, in the modern context, drawn at odds with it? Is purpose more important than cohesion?

Finally, why is the belief and ideology of faith at odds with objectivity (read rationality and logic). Weren't many brilliant minds also theologically involved? Why has the tool instead become a a counter belief in its own right?

>>2561526
Isn't there an alternative in accepting things for the way they are. I like eating. Does the reason matter? Food tastes good whether from the grace of God, evolution or inherent nature; the source doesn't change the concept in principle
While we can and should continue to interact with the concepts rationally so as to optimise the exchange is there no room to become more aware and accepting of the spontaneity and inexplicable nature of our traits and desires

Meaning is often derived from origin. Something was made for x purpose.
Often it is derived from ends it has acheived this and so that is what it was
Those are both rational positions

However if you break a concept away from its context and instead relate it only to you and your sensations and experience of it, couldn't that also give it meaning? A mindfull experiential approach, that is
One that gives order to the world via logic and rationality but meaning via idiosyncratic experience, fully aware of the subjectivity

various ezoteric/magical worldwievs kinda get trough this problem easy, like western occultism or zen, there realy isnt a problem in that sense, the problem only exists as long as you operate in the confines of the purely rattional mind, beyond it you see it as just a tool, even intelligence as such is inherently mechanical and impersonal

realy its a difference betveen going trough experiences thinking or feeling, the more one is dominant the more sqewed things become and the less active or present the other one is, like when we say someone is being histerical, or autistic

>>2561447
Neurophysiology.

>>2561572
>[...]views kinda get though this
Can you elaborate

>>2561575

well in hermetism the rattional mind is just a low-tier 'level' of mind, a sort of contraption that can be used to get higher but is blind in of itself, in many forms of occult its all about consciousness, focus, willpower and intention, intuition plays a big part, the rationale is often meaningless or subjective, except in just making connections betveen patterns
in buddhism its all objectified as contingent temporary process and the problem of people being pseudorattional is clearly understood
practicaly every ezoteric system has some way to deal with this set of paradoxes, since its a stepping stone to whatever transcendental beyond imagined or described, also they are always big on what today wed call ''emotional intelligence'' or things like knowing oneself and being at peace etc... all of which can be translated into mental states and brain functions honed and developed trough conscious experience

when you read the related literature you clearly get the idea what those people were realy doing, even if they used all sorts of metanaratives to describe it, was somekind of ''brain-work'', training the brain to think in certain ways, maintain certain states or trains of consciousness, as in meditation, ritual, contemplation, trance

freedom from the autism of rattionality, or in other words becoming truly rattional by percieving and comming to know ones rattional functions for what they realy are, and what is realy directing or controling them, is always seen as crucial

the brain rattionalises, analises and judges shit when it refuses to accept, or cannot cope with something it cant understand, on one side this is a sort of need, like being inquisitive or curious, in which cases its ''forward-oriented'' a sort of saying yes, but realy, far more often, it represents a sort of contraction, negation, a big 'no this is incorrect' - this off couse isnt rattionaly motivated, all such negation is the result of somekind of neurotic or egotistic content

>>2561546
Suited for progressing the world at large and humanity in particular.

We cannot base policies on instinct because instinct ignores the 'human factor', the feelings of others and social cohesion. However, to say 'we cannot' makes it seem like it's not possible: it's possible, just not desirable in my opinion.

Today, religion simply cannot increase cohesion anymore. There are too many people using religion (or lack thereof) as a tool to frame a 'them versus us' picture, which is terrible for a society that wants to progress. The believe in faith definitely is not at odds with objectivity, and I do not think I wrote that. I mean, faith can hinder objectivity (think Galileo), but also benefit it (think medieval education).

I don't think rationality is a belief per se. I think rationality is a way of thinking, which can be used both by believers and non-believers alike. I do think rationality makes it harder to believe when you are not born in a close-knit religious group. As society progresses, however, I think there will be less people who believe, simply because the world will lose more and more of its magic. When you think that there may be dragons in the next town over, for all you know, believing in God is easy.

File: image.png (258KB, 855x300px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 855x300px

>>2561447

>>2561447
>humans act based on survival value, so why should we value rationality more than faith or tradition?
Because rationality has more survival value than either faith or tradition (the latter two terms being synonyms for 'being cucked by elites').

sage for being this retarded

>>2561562

thats what i mean by ''die inside''

thats what it takes to just accept things as they are, othervise some part is allways refusing, negating, fighting

its the difference betveen ''im ok with this'' and ''why must this thing be, why why why???''

questioning something is in that sense, in that context, implicitly negating it, refusing it, wanting it to not exist

the intellect goes into overdrive in those instances since all our intention and inclinations are then directed against that reality, it all becomes one massive frustrating problem to be solved, regardless of which particularity it manifests as in that particular moment

since that part of us that does the affirmation/negation thing, or rather, those are its basic states or functions, dosent realy get time, and dosent realy get context, and dosent realy get a lot of things we consciously can account for, it is in a state of eternal moment, allencompassing, so in that moment of acceptance its a acceptance of everything, oneself, ones situation, reality, and in that moment of refusal its a refusal of everything, life, the world, existence as such

so the solution isnt something that can be figured out, its about basic internal states, based on them internal functions, based on them ''''conscious'''' functions, based on them rattionalisations and willful thought process, based on them external behavior

the causal chain behind any given thought is always way way longer and deeper than some cogito ergo bullshit

realy its pretty much cogito ergo cago

File: image.gif (754KB, 300x166px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 300x166px

>>2561652
I really hope this is a troll thread, but it's becoming harder and harder to tell of late