No Rationality without Poetry
Rationality without poetry (‘depth’) is meaningless. Moreover: it’s not even rational. Thus, better call it ‘rationality’ (between brackets).
[see: ‘AURELIS USP: ‘100% Rationality, 100% Depth’]
Rationality is not only about concepts
Of course, conceptual thinking is of huge importance. No doubt. However, through correct conceptual thinking, one can arrive at its own limits:
- 100% conceptual thinking – apart from mathematics, arguably – is not humanly possible. [see: ‘About Concepts’]
- There is a realm of reality that cannot be fully conceptually grasped. [see: ‘About ‘Subconceptual’]
Rationality is – by definition – about taking into account reality as a whole. Thus, the borders of conceptuality are not the borders of rationality.
Think ‘poetry’ (in general, not only poems). Rationality is also about this.
Do you think poetry exists?
Well then: poetry is precisely beyond conceptuality. This is even why it exists.
Thus:
One should not equivocate ‘rationality’ with ‘getting rid of poetry’.
Half a rationality is no rationality at all.
‘Getting rid of poetry’ is only what it directly means: ‘getting rid of’. I hope, dear reader, that you don’t abuse rationality for such a meager endeavor.
Nevertheless, I do see it being abused this way
even by people who are otherwise rational.
This abuse is plainly not rational. The result is irrationality. Because this may nevertheless seem so close to rationality, let’s put the term ‘rationality’ between brackets to denote a lack of poetry inside:
Rationality MINUS poetry IS ‘rationality’.
Unfortunately, ‘rationality’ is a huge source of dividedness, worldwide.
People who value poetry and see ‘rationality’ being used as an instrument for abusing the same, may turn away from rationality (without brackets) altogether.
Simply put, they:
- equivocate rationality with ‘rationality’
- see the abuse of poetry through ‘rationality’
- turn away from rationality.
How pitiful is this?
And with huge consequences…
Specifically, I see as one of the most appalling consequences: many people (+/- 6 billion, more precisely) are stuck between one’s own deeply felt – and valuable – religious feelings and the necessity to believe in some Santa Claus stuff.
Because ‘rationality’ cannot manage depth, eventually depth has mainly irrational outlets…
It’s even worse if ‘rational’ people point their finger to depth as source of irrationality.
The source of course is multi-faceted, including ‘rationality’.
Intercultural divides. Intra-cultural divides.
What a waste!
Related Posts
What’s it Like to Be a Bat?
This is about the ‘hard question of consciousness.’ Some argue this will never be solved. In his 1974 article, “What is it like to be a bat?” Thomas Nagel argues that conscious experience is subjective and can only be known from that perspective. We might imagine what it would be like to hang upside down, Read the full article…
The Real Enemy is Inner Dissociation
Looking at the present, one may be very optimistic or pessimistic. Many see ‘the other side’ as a source for pessimism. However, to what degree may the other side be related to one’s own inner side? [Matthew 7:3] “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention Read the full article…
Three Answers to Reality-as-Construction
The first answer lies in pragmatically choosing an option. The second lies in not choosing. The third lies in being the choice. Constructionism shows that we are necessarily and significantly active in constructing reality as we perceive it — a costly error in many respects such as playing a causal role in many psycho-somatic issues. Read the full article…