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 if the Rain Makes You Wet?
The metaphor of ‘rain on a screen,’ coined by philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, was a poignant critique of early A.I. — called Good Old-Fashioned A.I. (GOFAI). These systems, while sometimes impressive in their symbolic manipulations, lacked true engagement. They resembled the visual simulation of rain on a screen: interesting to look at but unable to wet Read the full article…
Freedom ― Human and A.I.
What does freedom mean for humans and AI? While these domains are fundamentally different, they share intriguing parallels that invite deeper exploration. Could freedom be a universal principle expressed uniquely in humans and AI? Let’s embark on this journey, unraveling how freedom arises through interaction, complexity, and the paradox of constraints. Defining freedom: human and Read the full article…
About Feelers and Feelings
Please let this text sink in a little while. If you get it, it may make you more flexible. To have or to be? That’s the question. In mind=body unity, the human being can be seen as a body or as a set of many mental entities, including what we generally call feelings – such Read the full article…