Rationality Contra Human Depth
For many people, rationality stands opposite to human depth ― a profound misunderstanding.
This includes many scientists ― or even especially the latter.
Difference conceptual – subconceptual
This is a more relevant distinction. If we put merely conceptual versus merely subconceptual, we can talk rightfully about opposites.
Of course, nothing is entirely the one or the other in real life. We are talking about the ends of a spectrum ― one line with two extremes. Even more accurate than just one line is a complex landscape in which one can experience interesting adventures.
Then why is rationality so frequently put contra human depth?
Logically, because they are frequently seen as being about the merely conceptual and the merely subconceptual. Thus, the opposition becomes one between conceptual rationality and irrational depth. But wait a minute: This is not what rationality is about, and this is not what human depth is about. In both cases, there is a profound misunderstanding.
Recent brain research has also undeniably proven that there are no distinct brain centers for rationality and depth. The brain doesn’t care much about this distinction ― even though the interpretations of brain imaging have been under Plato’s spell (see below) for quite some time.
Far more than just a philosophical question, this issue is breaking the global human civilization into pieces through a lack of insight into real rationality and real depth. Since Compassion needs a synthesis of both, this also hinders real Compassion.
Plato’s chariot allegory
In this allegory, the charioteer represents pure rationality, while two horses represent the positive and negative sides of the human being’s passionate nature. The charioteer’s challenging job is to direct the whole toward rational enlightenment.
Two directions are present in this allegory. Firstly, the clear distinction between the charioteer and the horses. Secondly, the aim that lies in bringing everything together as one whole with one goal.
The difference between Plato and Socrates – who voiced the allegory as recorded by his pupil, Plato – is, in my view, the same difference as explained above ― with or without the misunderstanding. In Socrates’ view, the charioteer may have been more a horse whisperer than a whip manager.
Nevertheless, Plato’s view has influenced Western culture for many centuries and into Western Enlightenment. If Socrates’ view had been followed, we would have a very different society.
But it is never too late to back up to Socrates’ view.
Socrates’ goal
This is also the goal of AURELIS: as much as possible real rationality, and as much as possible real depth.
The final goal is being real.
Related Posts
Be Water, My Friend
Bruce Lee’s famous saying, “Be water, my friend,” has circled the world, often admired but not always deeply understood. At first glance, it seems a demand for adaptability. Yet underneath lies a much deeper call: not just to adapt outwardly, but to live from an inner fluidity that reshapes itself without ever losing authenticity. In Read the full article…
Human Brain: Giant Pattern Recognizer
The human brain does not process information in purely linear ways, like a serial digital computer. Instead of this, many things in the brain happen in parallel and coordinated ways simultaneously at many levels. No serial look-up Leaving any soul-stuff aside, people use(d) to think of the human brain as a kind of giant serial Read the full article…
Antifragility
What if there’s a way to grow stronger, not just survive, through life’s inevitable challenges? This concept, known as antifragility, was popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2012 book “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.” Unlike (Taleb’s concept of) resilience, which merely withstands stress, antifragility refers to the capacity to thrive and even improve Read the full article…