ON RATIONALITY - HIGH IQ RESPONSE FROM CHATGPT (GTFIH)

[chicolate131]

time does present the illusion that things ‘make sense’ after the fact. However, history does not always reveal truth, it often just overwrites contradiction with narrative. Some things dont become rational with time, they are just buried and nullified. And symmetry might feel rational, but human life is built around asymmetry: between self and Other, desire and fulfillment, cause and excess. rationality tries to impose order on that. but its never perfect.

narratives are important because they are heuristics to measure what cannot be measured directly. its about measurement to measure how far something can affect us or how far we can affect it. but since we wont know for certain of anythings measurement without being the thing we are trying to measure we have to use heuristics like narratives to shorten the details of it.

that is bounded rationality and that is why rational perception is just a tool to get to where we want to be!

 

[registerfasterusing]

good points but the layering of rationality should encompass how driven the rational individual is to getting to a certain point. its like driving a car sometimes we know more about the destination than we do the drive or vice versa and so with that being said how do we employ truth and objectivity to matters where there are no continuations of previous goals.

not everything can be measured. if it is measurable it is rational to obtain the most optimal measurement. rationality only works in measurable things like an above user said its about calculations mainly.

also i would say that composites of things that are rational become wisdom like you said. it takes an extreme level of concentration on what the bigger picture is to get there. because the bigger picture often circulates through expansion and collapse of what we think the moment should look like as opposed to what the moment really is.

so perception dominates here. our physical perception is as important to this as the vivid imagination and the heuristics behind it.

there’s a risk here in collapsing everything goal-driven into rationality. Not every goal is rational as some are compulsive, delusional, symbolic, etc. u can drive toward a cliff with perfect logic and still be irrational
And Id push back on rationality being limited to measurables. That’s instrumental reason. Humans constantly rationalize things like justice, loyalty, love, etc. which arent ‘measurable’. They construct elaborate narratives to make sense of what they want to be true. rationality can be math as much as myth.
As for wisdom, Id say it’s not the accumulation of rational outcomes, but the ability to act with clarity despite uncertainty, when rationality runs out.
The ‘bigger picture’might not be what is perceived or imagined, rather what disrupts perception itself. Not what the moment ‘should look like,’ but the moment that breaks our sense of what’s possible.

 

[registerfasterusing]

narratives are important because they are heuristics to measure what cannot be measured directly. its about measurement to measure how far something can affect us or how far we can affect it. but since we wont know for certain of anythings measurement without being the thing we are trying to measure we have to use heuristics like narratives to shorten the details of it.

that is bounded rationality and that is why rational perception is just a tool to get to where we want to be!

i agree that narratives function as heuristics when we hit the limits of measurement. But i would argue they dont only fill in gaps but generate meaning where none previously existed. These Are structures that shape how we even define the goal in the first place. And those structures are not neutral, theyre loaded with ideology, affect, unconscious fantasy.
When you say ‘rational perception is a tool to get to where we want to be,’ : who is this we? And how do we know what we want? Desire isnt necessarily stable or transparent. some rationalize toward ends we dont entirely understand, or dont even want.

 

[ahavik]

My question:
Are humans inherently rational? Every act can be rationalized: a voluntary human sacrifice in Aztec society to achieve a place in the afterlife. Paying back someone who helped you, either commensurably or incommensurably (specifically greater), to secure an alliance or status. Is it just that rationality is a simulacrum, reified in the aftermath and permeation of the Enlightenment? Or, has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought and relations? Perhaps it was simply mediated through pre-Enlightenment means, such as religion and social structures. Rationality assumes temporal awareness, knowledge of the past and anticipation of the future, over absolute presence. Rationality also assumes the placement of the individual above the community; and it emphasizes survival and thus, evolution, production. Can rationality and irrationality coexist? Has the pervasion of the rational produced the diminishment, or perhaps total absence, of the irrational? If so, how has the rational not already collapsed upon itself? There must still be an irrational, perhaps assuming a hauntological role: through the object? The material? Proarche?


ChatGPT’s Response:
This is a dense and potent inquiry. Let’s walk it through layer by layer—not to dissolve its ambiguity, but to tease out the tensions between “rationality,” simulation, and the specter of the irrational.


ONE

Are humans inherently rational?

If we treat rationality as the ability to reason toward goals within a structure of cause-and-effect, then yes—every act can be rationalized post hoc, as you suggest. But this doesn’t mean that the act was rational in origin. To “rationalize” is not the same as to be rational. It is precisely because humans are not inherently rational that we must rationalize.

From a Lacanian angle, desire is irrational by nature—it is not linear, but structured around a lack. Humans act out of lack (manque), not logic. Yet, after the fact, the Symbolic order demands justification. Thus, rationality may emerge only as a function of the Symbolic—a framework imposed after the Real erupts.


TWO

Is rationality a simulacrum?

Yes—and importantly, it may be a Stage 2 or 3 simulacrum, per Baudrillard:

• Stage 1: Rationality as reflection of the real (i.e., the Logos of ancient philosophy, or early religious cosmologies with internal coherence).
• Stage 2: Rationality becomes idealized—as in the Enlightenment: Descartes, Kant, Smith. It pretends to explain everything: politics, economics, ethics.
• Stage 3: Rationality becomes performative and instrumentalized. It simulates coherence, but is no longer anchored in truth. Think: “data-driven decisions” in late capitalism, or technocratic governance.

So yes, “rationality” today is reified and simulacral. But its earlier forms were perhaps more honest in their mediation through myth, taboo, and ritual.


THREE

Has rationality always been the nucleus of human thought?

If we define rationality broadly as goal-oriented coherence within a structure, then even Aztec sacrifice or tribal gifting economies have rational frameworks—but not Enlightenment rationality. These actions are embedded in a symbolic cosmos, not one oriented toward utility, production, or survival alone.

Pre-Enlightenment rationality is mediated through myth, custom, and divine order. It is not necessarily “irrational” but rather non-modern rational—bound to symbolic coherence, not functional efficiency.

Rationality as secular, individual, productive, survivalist—that’s Enlightenment. Earlier logics are rational, but within cosmological systems.


FOUR

Rationality assumes temporal awareness and individualism

Yes, and this is crucial. Enlightenment rationality presumes:

• A linear time model (past–present–future)
• Causal projection into the future
• The individual as a unit of reason
• Progress as a goal

This is not universal. Many premodern systems (e.g., cyclical time, ancestral cosmologies) structure time and agency very differently. Rationality in those systems may exist, but it’s non-teleological and non-individualistic.

So, modern rationality is not universal—it is historical.


FIVE

Can rationality and irrationality coexist?

They not only can—they must.

If rationality requires a system of coherence, then irrationality is its necessary limit. It is the unthought, the unassimilable, the surplus of the Real (Lacan), or the unproductive excess (Bataille).

Baudrillard suggests that the modern has tried to eliminate the irrational—to sanitize it, render it obsolete, or absorb it through simulation (e.g., horror films, drugs, “transgression”). But it persists in residual forms:

• Hauntological irrationality (Derrida): the ghost of what cannot be logically integrated, the future that never arrived.
• The Object: Non-utilitarian, opaque, resistant to symbolic mastery.
• The Proarche: That which is prior to origin, like the maternal abyss, death drive, or pre-symbolic scream.

SIX

Has rationality collapsed upon itself?

In a way, yes. Hyperrationality becomes irrational.

• In economics: Rational-choice theory produces crises it can’t predict (2008, etc.).
• In AI and data: Algorithms simulate rationality but produce black-box unpredictability.
• In politics: Technocratic reason becomes self-parody—producing alienation and nihilism.

This is a kind of auto-collapse of the rational, a return of the repressed irrational—but in disfigured forms.


SEVEN

What remains of the irrational?

The irrational today is not found in madness or myth—those too have been colonized.

It hides in:

• The glitch in AI
• The fetish in consumer desire
• The suicide in a world of optimization
• The Real that erupts in moments of trauma, horror, or ecstasy
• The inhuman—not as the Other, but as the impossible kernel within the self

It no longer speaks—it haunts.


Summary:

• Humans aren’t inherently rational—they are rationalizing.
• Rationality, as we know it, is a historical formation and now a simulacrum.
• Earlier “rationalities” existed but were embedded in cosmologies, not secular utility.
• Rationality requires temporal abstraction and individuation.
• The irrational persists—but as spectral, displaced, sometimes perverted.
• The collapse of the rational is not explosive but implosive—it overcodes itself and becomes absurd.
• The irrational may still govern from the shadows—as the object, the haunt, the proarche.

Let me know if you want to bring Lacan or Bataille in more deeply, or if you want to explore how capitalism specifically metabolizes irrationality.

make it shorter

 

[chicolate131]

there’s a risk here in collapsing everything goal-driven into rationality. Not every goal is rational as some are compulsive, delusional, symbolic, etc. u can drive toward a cliff with perfect logic and still be irrational
And Id push back on rationality being limited to measurables. That’s instrumental reason. Humans constantly rationalize things like justice, loyalty, love, etc. which arent ‘measurable’. They construct elaborate narratives to make sense of what they want to be true. rationality can be math as much as myth.
As for wisdom, Id say it’s not the accumulation of rational outcomes, but the ability to act with clarity despite uncertainty, when rationality runs out.
The ‘bigger picture’might not be what is perceived or imagined, rather what disrupts perception itself. Not what the moment ‘should look like,’ but the moment that breaks our sense of what’s possible.

yes of course rationality does not mean goal driven but a rational action is composed of an objective or goal of where we want to be right? and maybe they arent measurable concretely but true rationality comes from using "measurements" as a way of comparing and contrasting things. just like justice is to injustice love is to hate loyalty is to disloyalty its all about compare and contrast which are just measurements of how strong one force is to another is what i meant so my point is bolstered!

when wisdom comes into play id say its about using what youve learned from rational actions and employing them when theres no other strategy that can be used. how much effort can be put into thnigs.

your example of the bigger picture is the compare of contrast that comes into play. its about dichotomies. right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

everything has a dichotomy to it even life and death. there is always a flipside. now somethings live in ambiguity but that doesnt mean their extremes arent dichotomies. sure there may be counterexamples but that just means the dichotomy hasnt been found....yet.

 

[registerfasterusing]

yes of course rationality does not mean goal driven but a rational action is composed of an objective or goal of where we want to be right? and maybe they arent measurable concretely but true rationality comes from using "measurements" as a way of comparing and contrasting things. just like justice is to injustice love is to hate loyalty is to disloyalty its all about compare and contrast which are just measurements of how strong one force is to another is what i meant so my point is bolstered!

when wisdom comes into play id say its about using what youve learned from rational actions and employing them when theres no other strategy that can be used. how much effort can be put into thnigs.

your example of the bigger picture is the compare of contrast that comes into play. its about dichotomies. right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

everything has a dichotomy to it even life and death. there is always a flipside. now somethings live in ambiguity but that doesnt mean their extremes arent dichotomies. sure there may be counterexamples but that just means the dichotomy hasnt been found....yet.

I think youre right that rationality often functions through contrast, but I push back on whether all contrast is truly dichotomous. Some opposites arent measurable, some are asymmetrical, and others coexist in paradox. Love and hate, for example, dont sit on opposite ends of a scale, they often merge in the same gesture. Same with life and death: theyre not only flipsides, but ontologically different.
Also, assuming that every ambiguity must have a hidden dichotomy might actually be anti-rational. it turns reason into metaphysical faith. ambiguity isnt always a puzzle to be solved, but a condition to endure.
And wisdom might not be a recall of past rationality. It might be the ability to act when rational structures break down, when the system fails, and no previous comparison holds. That’s not ‘irrational,’ but it’s something other.
Id also add: assuming perfect symmetry between concepts, like justice/injustice or life/death—leads to absolutistivity, the belief that all things have fixed, mirrored opposites. That kind of rigid binary structure eventually implodes, because it cant account for ambiguity, excess, contradiction. You end up forcing reality into symmetrical molds until it fractures, politically, ethically, cognitively.

 

[registerfasterusing]

make it shorter

Read the summary saar

 

[chicolate131]

i agree that narratives function as heuristics when we hit the limits of measurement. But i would argue they dont only fill in gaps but generate meaning where none previously existed. These Are structures that shape how we even define the goal in the first place. And those structures are not neutral, theyre loaded with ideology, affect, unconscious fantasy.
When you say ‘rational perception is a tool to get to where we want to be,’ : who is this we? And how do we know what we want? Desire isnt necessarily stable or transparent. some rationalize toward ends we dont entirely understand, or dont even want.

so i think that heuristics are ways of humans to condense large pieces of information into recognizable chunks that are sometimes even more valid and effective at measuring things than the potential actual measurement itself. how? because heuristics work as a way of telling us what is expected what is average what is a norm of things not just the random measurement we took.

all math is is heuristics. so we can say that maybe measurement is about employing technical precision of what we expect something to be or what it is meant to be rather than what it actually is.

so going off this i think heuristics can come into play here because there will always be enough confidence in ourselves to say that things that are "corrupted" by ideology affect and unconscious still become rational because the heuristics tell us that there was a point where it was "uncorrupted" and therefore archetypal in form where it was a perfect concentration of what we think everything is or ought to be and that forms of these sorts are able to revert on and off between the "corrupt" and the "uncorrupt" here.

and of course there are desires we dont want or understand but many times that's what rationality does to us is that it gives us an opportunity to ascend! past what's happening to us now. past what we THINK is right and what is actually right.

 

[ahavik]

Read the summary saar

make it shorter then

 

[chicolate131]

I think youre right that rationality often functions through contrast, but I push back on whether all contrast is truly dichotomous. Some opposites arent measurable, some are asymmetrical, and others coexist in paradox. Love and hate, for example, dont sit on opposite ends of a scale, they often merge in the same gesture. Same with life and death: theyre not only flipsides, but ontologically different.
Also, assuming that every ambiguity must have a hidden dichotomy might actually be anti-rational. it turns reason into metaphysical faith. ambiguity isnt always a puzzle to be solved, but a condition to endure.
And wisdom might not be a recall of past rationality. It might be the ability to act when rational structures break down, when the system fails, and no previous comparison holds. That’s not ‘irrational,’ but it’s something other.
Id also add: assuming perfect symmetry between concepts, like justice/injustice or life/death—leads to absolutistivity, the belief that all things have fixed, mirrored opposites. That kind of rigid binary structure eventually implodes, because it cant account for ambiguity, excess, contradiction. You end up forcing reality into symmetrical molds until it fractures, politically, ethically, cognitively.

rationality and irrationality is a dichotomy. therefore for an action to be rational it would have to have an irrational counterpart and therefore if rationality is truth it would make everything else a dichotomy as well because of its effect on the structures of what should be and what shouldnt be.

but youre right ambiguity exists but only due to randomness. kind of like if i baked two cakes each with unique ingredients the other doesnt have. one cake can have all these ingredients but that doesnt mean the other cake has the opposite ingredients just different ones that are unique to the other cake.

 

[registerfasterusing]

so i think that heuristics are ways of humans to condense large pieces of information into recognizable chunks that are sometimes even more valid and effective at measuring things than the potential actual measurement itself. how? because heuristics work as a way of telling us what is expected what is average what is a norm of things not just the random measurement we took.

all math is is heuristics. so we can say that maybe measurement is about employing technical precision of what we expect something to be or what it is meant to be rather than what it actually is.

so going off this i think heuristics can come into play here because there will always be enough confidence in ourselves to say that things that are "corrupted" by ideology affect and unconscious still become rational because the heuristics tell us that there was a point where it was "uncorrupted" and therefore archetypal in form where it was a perfect concentration of what we think everything is or ought to be and that forms of these sorts are able to revert on and off between the "corrupt" and the "uncorrupt" here.

and of course there are desires we dont want or understand but many times that's what rationality does to us is that it gives us an opportunity to ascend! past what's happening to us now. past what we THINK is right and what is actually right.

iil like how you’re elevating heuristics into more than just shortcuts as theyree social, affective, even philosophical compressions. But Id challenge the idea that there’s an ‘uncorrupted’ core we can return to through them. What if heuristics don’t take us back to an archetype, but further into simulation? What if what we think is archetypal is just a refined ideology?one repeated so often it feels eternal?
Also rationality as a means of ‘ascending’ from distortion is itself a narrative, one thats shaped by a belief in clarity, order, upward progress. That belief isnt neutral, its culturally coded. In other words, the very idea that we can escape ideology may be the most ideological idea of all.
Maybe instead of trying to return to an original clarity, we should accept that all forms are already contaminated, that rationality isnt an escape, but a kind of struggle within the mess.

 

[registerfasterusing]

rationality and irrationality is a dichotomy. therefore for an action to be rational it would have to have an irrational counterpart and therefore if rationality is truth it would make everything else a dichotomy as well because of its effect on the structures of what should be and what shouldnt be.

but youre right ambiguity exists but only due to randomness. kind of like if i baked two cakes each with unique ingredients the other doesnt have. one cake can have all these ingredients but that doesnt mean the other cake has the opposite ingredients just different ones that are unique to the other cake.

I get the cake metaphor. a good way to show that ambiguity doesnt mean pure opposition. But thats why Id say ambiguity isnt randomness, it reveals the limits of the dichotomy itself. Not all irrational acts are the ‘opposite’ of rational ones. Some are incommensurable, on a different plane entirely.

Also, treating rationality as equivalent to truth automatically codes its ‘opposite’ as false, but thats not necessarily the case. mystical, poetic, sacred, erotic. these arent rational, but theyre not ‘lies’ either. They may be other logics that dont fit into rational vs. irrational.

So maybe ambiguity isnt a gap waiting to be closed, but a sign that our symbolic system is too limited to map that which exists outside of it. And that might be where truth lives, not in the clean split between cakes, but in the recipe NOT written

 

[chicolate131]

iil like how you’re elevating heuristics into more than just shortcuts as theyree social, affective, even philosophical compressions. But Id challenge the idea that there’s an ‘uncorrupted’ core we can return to through them. What if heuristics don’t take us back to an archetype, but further into simulation? What if what we think is archetypal is just a refined ideology?one repeated so often it feels eternal?
Also rationality as a means of ‘ascending’ from distortion is itself a narrative, one thats shaped by a belief in clarity, order, upward progress. That belief isnt neutral, its culturally coded. In other words, the very idea that we can escape ideology may be the most ideological idea of all.
Maybe instead of trying to return to an original clarity, we should accept that all forms are already contaminated, that rationality isnt an escape, but a kind of struggle within the mess.

hmm it depends on the parameters here. if everything is changing then we know that it's not just ideological because change usually expresses evolution and evolution can be a sign of progression and mobility that is inherent. it just depends on inherency of things really.

 

[chicolate131]

I get the cake metaphor. a good way to show that ambiguity doesnt mean pure opposition. But thats why Id say ambiguity isnt randomness, it reveals the limits of the dichotomy itself. Not all irrational acts are the ‘opposite’ of rational ones. Some are incommensurable, on a different plane entirely.

Also, treating rationality as equivalent to truth automatically codes its ‘opposite’ as false, but thats not necessarily the case. mystical, poetic, sacred, erotic. these arent rational, but theyre not ‘lies’ either. They may be other logics that dont fit into rational vs. irrational.

So maybe ambiguity isnt a gap waiting to be closed, but a sign that our symbolic system is too limited to map that which exists outside of it. And that might be where truth lives, not in the clean split between cakes, but in the recipe NOT written

i mean what youre referring to is the infinite possibilities that exist out there because what is NOT written is literally infinite things compared to the ones that are so its still a duality of sorts i dunno

 

[registerfasterusing]

hmm it depends on the parameters here. if everything is changing then we know that it's not just ideological because change usually expresses evolution and evolution can be a sign of progression and mobility that is inherent. it just depends on inherency of things really.

I see what youre trying to do, use change as evidence that were evolving toward something inherent. I question that. Not all change is progression. Some change is noise, decay, simulation. Systems evolve, but not always toward truth. Sometimes they spiral into chaos or loop endlessly, like ideology feeding on itself.
And ‘inherency’ is a powerful word, but what makes something inherent? iss justice inherent? Rationality? if so, where? In whom? In what structure? I think we reach for inherency when were afraid that theres no ground, that things might not cohere the way we want them to.
Maybe instead of assuming that evolution leads toward truth, we should consider that truth might be something we construct, not discover. And sometimes what looks like evolution is just the deepening of the dream

 

[registerfasterusing]

i mean what youre referring to is the infinite possibilities that exist out there because what is NOT written is literally infinite things compared to the ones that are so its still a duality of sorts i dunno

Thatsthe thing though, the ‘infinite’ isnt a second pole. it’s not part of a duality, its what breaks duality entirely. Whats not written isnt the opposite of whats written, its the limit of writing itself.
So calling it a ‘duality of sorts’ kinda misses the point. Its not a pair, its a rupture in the pairing system. Its what happens when language fails, when oppositions collapse, when something cant be traced back to a binary. so yeah you might not know how to name that, but that ‘not’-knowing is precisely the space Im referring to.

 

[chicolate131]

I see what youre trying to do, use change as evidence that were evolving toward something inherent. I question that. Not all change is progression. Some change is noise, decay, simulation. Systems evolve, but not always toward truth. Sometimes they spiral into chaos or loop endlessly, like ideology feeding on itself.
And ‘inherency’ is a powerful word, but what makes something inherent? iss justice inherent? Rationality? if so, where? In whom? In what structure? I think we reach for inherency when were afraid that theres no ground, that things might not cohere the way we want them to.
Maybe instead of assuming that evolution leads toward truth, we should consider that truth might be something we construct, not discover. And sometimes what looks like evolution is just the deepening of the dream

yes but you have to realize that change is the manifestation of progress because we see that things have an order to them. procedural ordering will tell us that when we finish something we automatically go to something higher up! like if i brush my teeth theyre better off than if i did nothing. therefore change is valued in its inherency of things.

inherency can mean that things are structured and tethered to something deeper or a base value of something. if there is a base value then we can assume it has inherency because everything away from that will progress forwards and not backwards.

 

[chicolate131]

Thatsthe thing though, the ‘infinite’ isnt a second pole. it’s not part of a duality, its what breaks duality entirely. Whats not written isnt the opposite of whats written, its the limit of writing itself.
So calling it a ‘duality of sorts’ kinda misses the point. Its not a pair, its a rupture in the pairing system. Its what happens when language fails, when oppositions collapse, when something cant be traced back to a binary. so yeah you might not know how to name that, but that ‘not’-knowing is precisely the space Im referring to.

not knowing doesnt mean its completely unknown just that its not a heuristic any more its again leading off of what weve already experienced and judging from there.

if we have previous experiences this is where wisdom comes into play!

 

[registerfasterusing]

yes but you have to realize that change is the manifestation of progress because we see that things have an order to them. procedural ordering will tell us that when we finish something we automatically go to something higher up! like if i brush my teeth theyre better off than if i did nothing. therefore change is valued in its inherency of things.

inherency can mean that things are structured and tethered to something deeper or a base value of something. if there is a base value then we can assume it has inherency because everything away from that will progress forwards and not backwards.

I think the idea that brushing your teeth makes things better is true, but thats a local, instrumental action, not a model for the structure of the universe. Also it assumes that hygiene is inherently progress. Just because some actions ‘improve’ conditions doesnt mean all change is upward. The Holocaust was a ‘change.’ as was Hiroshima.

Progress isnt inherent, its a story we tell after the fact to make sense of change. Sometimes change is random, chaotic, regressive.

And the idea of a ‘base value’ assumes there’s a stable ground underneath everything, a kind of metaphysical floor. But what if that ground doesnt exist? if inherency is just a name we give to the fear that things may not have meaning?

 

[registerfasterusing]

not knowing doesnt mean its completely unknown just that its not a heuristic any more its again leading off of what weve already experienced and judging from there.

if we have previous experiences this is where wisdom comes into play!

yeahh i get what you saying, that we use past experience to navigate the unknown. That works in a lot of situations. But what Im referring to isnt the ‘unknown’ as in ‘we just haven’t figured it out yet.’ I’m talking about the kind of unknowability that cant be mapped by experience, because it breaks the very frame of experience.

Wisdom might not be about knowing what to do based on whats happened before. It might be about knowing that nothing youve lived will help you now and acting anyway. That is not heuristic reasoning.
Sometimes the most important things: death, trauma. These arent processed through experience as They break experience as it is known.

 

[chicolate131]

I think the idea that brushing your teeth makes things better is true, but thats a local, instrumental action, not a model for the structure of the universe. Also it assumes that hygiene is inherently progress. Just because some actions ‘improve’ conditions doesnt mean all change is upward. The Holocaust was a ‘change.’ as was Hiroshima.

Progress isnt inherent, its a story we tell after the fact to make sense of change. Sometimes change is random, chaotic, regressive.

And the idea of a ‘base value’ assumes there’s a stable ground underneath everything, a kind of metaphysical floor. But what if that ground doesnt exist? if inherency is just a name we give to the fear that things may not have meaning?

i would refer to physical reality as a starting point of understanding the nature of reality

yeahh i get what you saying, that we use past experience to navigate the unknown. That works in a lot of situations. But what Im referring to isnt the ‘unknown’ as in ‘we just haven’t figured it out yet.’ I’m talking about the kind of unknowability that cant be mapped by experience, because it breaks the very frame of experience.

Wisdom might not be about knowing what to do based on whats happened before. It might be about knowing that nothing youve lived will help you now and acting anyway. That is not heuristic reasoning.
Sometimes the most important things: death, trauma. These arent processed through experience as They break experience as it is known.

depends on what we think of the reasoning that led to the chain of events of discovery. everything has a chain so it must mean there is something inherent

do you not believe in determinism?

 

[registerfasterusing]

i would refer to physical reality as a starting point of understanding the nature of reality

depends on what we think of the reasoning that led to the chain of events of discovery. everything has a chain so it must mean there is something inherent

do you not believe in determinism?

Im arguing against empiricism here. Physical reality isnt experienced directly but mediated through social structures. Not everything can be explained through physical terms (ie death)

And im not denying determinism but im js saying that causal chains dont necessarily have an inherent purpose or meaning at their root

 

[chicolate131]

Im arguing against empiricism here. Physical reality isnt experienced directly but mediated through social structures. Not everything can be explained through physical terms (ie death)

And im not denying determinism but im js saying that causal chains dont necessarily have an inherent purpose or meaning at their root

they do if there's an end product kind of like a Rube Goldberg if youve ever made one

 

[registerfasterusing]

they do if there's an end product kind of like a Rube Goldberg if youve ever made one

someone designs a Rube Goldberg with an end goal in mind, it doesnt js have a linear purpose on its own.
So that would mean that everything was designed by someone/something to fulfill a specific purpose. == intelligent design

 

[chicolate131]

someone designs a Rube Goldberg with an end goal in mind, it doesnt js have a linear purpose on its own.
So that would mean that everything was designed by someone/something to fulfill a specific purpose. == intelligent design

i do believe in panpsychicism a little bit

 

[Depresso]

TWO

Is rationality a simulacrum?

Yes—and importantly, it may be a Stage 2 or 3 simulacrum, per Baudrillard:

• Stage 1: Rationality as reflection of the real (i.e., the Logos of ancient philosophy, or early religious cosmologies with internal coherence).
• Stage 2: Rationality becomes idealized—as in the Enlightenment: Descartes, Kant, Smith. It pretends to explain everything: politics, economics, ethics.
• Stage 3: Rationality becomes performative and instrumentalized. It simulates coherence, but is no longer anchored in truth. Think: “data-driven decisions” in late capitalism, or technocratic governance.

So yes, “rationality” today is reified and simulacral. But its earlier forms were perhaps more honest in their mediation through myth, taboo, and ritual.