The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The age of reason > Comments

The age of reason : Comments

By David Young, published 15/1/2009

Surely if we were in fact rational beings we would learn from each other and form a human paradigm?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Clickcraftsman.
'Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions'. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. (same article as your quote). I relate the initial cognitions to paradigms. That may be a matter for discussion (as I hope it will be), but my use of cognative dissonancece is within the definition.
You avoided discussion on Whorf's (spelt incorrectly in the article) Linguistic Theory when asserting there was not a male and female language. That was appropriate. I do not call the quoting of the first line of an article research. 'Groupthink' can be small or large groups.
Posted by Daviy, Thursday, 15 January 2009 5:18:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David's post is interesting and thought provokoing - thanks.

Though, I must agree with clickcraftsman to some extent that the use of terminogy is misleading and accepted terms have been contorted.

The term "reason" itself is worth looking at. A quick dictionary check showed up 9 meanings, the major ones for me being 1) a justification 2) a description of causality 3) a more refined and scientific based approach to knowing things based on deliberately cutting off emotional or other inexplicable phenomana that may interfere, or may not be measurable.

I would say that number 1) is what David has tried to do in his article (as indeed I am doing now, and many of us here are on this forum); that 2) may be a judaistic-christian construct and is imbedded in our language as David suggests and is itself one of the competing frames or paradigms referred to by another commenter above. Causality may not actually exist in any lineal way we can recognize, and may be our construct for understanding the inexplicable; and that 3) presents a cold dank world that wouldn't be worth living in, i.e. a world that discounts or cuts off emotions and all the joys and troubles that derive from them.

In conclusion, I would contend that reason is itself over-rated, or misconstrued, or downright life - negating. I would also add, somewhat incongruously to my first two comments, that version 3) certainly provides some nice technological comforts that I would not like to sacrifice.
Posted by Gavan Iacono, Thursday, 15 January 2009 5:35:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article but where to from here?

A collection of paradigms might be able to converge towards a single point of humanity but it will be a slow convergence because these paradigms generally work in isolation (geographically and ideologically) from each other. (Occasionally crossing paths but usually in strife).

Rational beings would have to dominate each paradigm and provide the impetus for a paradigm shift to that elusive single point. Religion is rarely rational in the 'Groupthink' context where humans tend to take the defensive ground in a pack-like mentality based on fear.

Psychologically this pack mentality is not exclusive to religious groups but groups of various shades. Throw in economic disparity and you add more fuel to the division rather than toward any possible solution.

Secularism is a large paradigm shift that has occurred and shows promise that we are becoming more tolerant, or at least evolving towards a new tolerance and accepting of other people's beliefs even if we don't subsribe to them ourselves.

Multi-culturalism is another large paradigm shift demonstrating that people of various paradigms can live together even if not always harmoniously at first.

As far as learning from history, I think we do in bits and pieces but because a single human only lives a set number of years these lesson are learnt generationally and have to be relearnt or inherited by subsequent generations within the context of a different environment.

Sounds hopless doesn't it but not so. It takes time for humans to accept and adapt to change but it can happen. Aren't we generally a more tolerant and compassionate society now than we were 100 years ago?
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 15 January 2009 6:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting piece.

The author presents a comprehensive view on the "voluntary" constructs that we have come to use to regulate our social interactions.

A recent Economist article presents another key contributor: evolution itself.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795581

"Traditionally, the answers to such questions [of man's irrationality], and many others about modern life, have been sought in philosophy, sociology, even religion. But the answers that have come back are generally unsatisfying. They describe, rather than explain."

The article observes that many believe that...

"...with appropriate education, indoctrination, social conditioning or what have you, people can be made to behave in almost any way imaginable. The evidence, however, is that they cannot."

It suggests that the traditional starting-point of much human behavioural analysis...

"...that evolution stops at the neck: that human anatomy evolved, but human behaviour is culturally determined."

...is in fact incorrect.

It's well worth the read.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 15 January 2009 7:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This reference provides both a thorough-going critique of the fragmentary and devisive ways which have INEVITABLY produced the current disaster, AND the working principles for the establishment of a new paradigm.

http://www.ispeace723.org/toc.html

Everything else is just an extension and continuation of the old collective end-game psychosis.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 15 January 2009 8:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Everything is perceived in the language we think in."

Thats right when thinking about perception and then only when word labels are attached to the process of identifying observed patterns. Otherwise, one doesnt need language to perceive and instantly process the senses.

Language is the medium for plugging each others thoughts about perception into each other.

Author seems to assume there's no other way of perceiving beyond linguistic labels. Bold statement.

Otherwise, the piece reads like a veiled post-modernist rationalisation of an agenda layered in a touch of defeatism and fear. Understandable too, given the unconscious winds of emotive self(ish) interest blowing us about.

Yet, reason itself has a very strong inclination to shine through the foggy thoughts about perception, continually questioning everything, even itself. l see that as a great strength of reason.

Also, l would posit that it takes thinking to muddle the logical process. Driven by fear of the unknown/unknowable to the point where the mind settles for something that it can use to get a feeling.

One can logically accept the limits of thinking and knowing, whilst utilising it for what it can do, which in my view is a helleva lot. Emotion has a way of harrying reason back into its box, but cannot keep it there.

l'd call that process of tricking the mind into believing something b/c it triggered a feeling... emotion. The physical feeling equals a type of confirmation. If it accords with some sort of recognised pattern, its taken as more confirmation. Then people start to believe their own false thinking. Worse, start believing in the fears. Which unfortunately for society is the ultimate paradigm that shapes its cacophony of maladies.

l reckon that if my mind can think up an emotional context to get a physiological response, then with practice and dilligence it can stop being lazy, stop going for the easy emotive thought process and ultimately think logically.

None of this means becoming a robot devoid of life's sensory range, altho its hard to accept l find. Probably fear.

Hey, but thats just my wordy paradigm shifty-ness.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 15 January 2009 8:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy