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
In Mind-Matters, We’re still Pre-Science
Well, mostly. Unfortunately, as we were still pre-science in body-matters 250 years ago, we still are in mind-matters today. In healthcare 250 years ago, practices like bloodletting, enemas, and the theory of four humors were prevalent. There was some science in that pre-science era, but it was pretty limited. Note that in this blog, ‘mind’ Read the full article…
The Meaning of a Word
“The meaning of a word is its use in the language.” — Quote by Wittgenstein, who talked about language games because ‘use in the language’ can be seen as having a very playful aspect. A dictionary provides the meaning of a word ― in some way, but always as an approximation. A word doesn’t have meaning like Read the full article…
Popperian vs. Kuhnian
Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were two heavyweights in the thinking-about-science of the 20th century. Popper saw scientific progress as a gradual drifting. Kuhn added to this a sudden shifting — as in ‘paradigm shift.’ One can broaden this dichotomy to thinking in general. Many people are continually inclined, in their thinking, to go from Read the full article…