Monthly Archives: July 2017

On the rational hubris

Philosophers have put forward the idea that rationality can free itself from reality and create a rational world separated from reality. The problem with this idea is that rationality is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory. If rationality had been consistent, then it could have created such a world, but since it isn’t, it can’t. Instead, rationality can only create consistent models of how reality works, not of what reality is. Rationality will thus always be second to reality.

This fact is why rationality can’t compete with belief. Both of them are fundamentally paradoxically contradictory.

On the inherent contradiction of reality

The problem with reality is that it rationally is both pattern and process (ie, things and change) at the same time, when pattern and process rationally are orthogonal and thus can’t share “the same time”. A thing rationally simply can’t both be something and change at the same time. It rationally must fundamentally either be something or change.

So, if reality rationally is impossible, then reality is rationally incomprehensible. We simply can’t understand reality. However, the empirical fact that reality changes means that we can understand HOW it changes, but thus not WHAT it is. We actually have no empirical evidence for the assumption that it is. For all we can know, reality does indeed change, but may not be.

The problem with reality for rational understanding

The problem with reality for rational understanding is that it is hidden between being either “either or” an orthogonal contradiction (like “particle” and “wave”) or the opposite “both and” this contradiction, since it can’t be neither “either” nor “both and” at the same time.

According to rational understanding, reality thus instead simply can’t be. This understanding at first appears totally stupid, but at a second thought, it is actually consistent with the empirical fact that reality is ever-changing (by being what one would expect rationally from something that is although it can’t be). The understanding thus paints a picture of a reality that exists only in terms of change.

Such picture (model) of reality is not problematical for science in itself (see modern mathematics and quantum mechanics), but it is problematical for the marketing of rationality (ie, science) in competition with all kinds of beliefs to a public whereof a majority lack ability to understand the picture (model). The picture (model), and together with it, rational thinking, thus runs the risk of being discarded in democratic elections.

The problem with reality for rational understanding is thus that rational people may discard both rationality and the results of it democratically by being inable to understand it. Rationality is simply voted to the sink.