Deconstructing Rationality Coming Soon

[Xonas Pitfall]

Super excited for it! Thank you, Leo! Woot woot woot woop woop! 

[Majed]

@Leo Gura Won't you get tired of beating this dead horse ? People who are familiar with your content and do spiritual work, already know the limits of rationality: aka that rationality is a construct and that the mind is capable of venturing beyond rationality. Plus how stupid are rationalist, they don't take into account relativity, the psychology of how people develop worldviews, egos, as well as consciousness, self reflection, mystical insights. Fundamentally rationalism is too shallow of a worldview, it is conformity and group think, based on all kinds of metaphysical and epistemic assumptions, biases, unproven beliefs... And also it is a complete ignorance of the importance of metaphysics and metaphysical thinking. Rationalism isn't intelligent nor wise, it's fool's gold. 

[r0ckyreed]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not an irony. Proper rationality self-reflects and recognizes its own limitations.

Yes. But how do you validate and deconstruct rationality/logic without using rationality/logic? I don’t think you can. All deconstruction is using Rationality with a capital R to analyze the limits and assumptions of a thing. It seems like it is circular reasoning in the end. But circular reasoning may be rational when talking about existence itself. Existence exists because it exists. Consciousness has an Absolute Rationality to it. Rationality itself is circular because there is nothing outside of it to deconstruct it nor validate it. It’s self-validating, just like Consciousness. I may have answered my own question. I’ll have to contemplate this more. 

Edited 23 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[OBEler]

Leo your oven is always on fire this year. Incredible return after your break. Also your blog posts were very entertaining and informative. Thanks for all this work so far. I really appreciate that.

[iceprincess]

@Leo Gura any updates on your reprogramming your subconscious mind course? or please tell us why you've been ignoring all of us in the thread

[Ulax]

@Leo Gura Let’s gooooo!

Excited for it’

[Nemra]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This will be much more sophisticated.

@Leo Gura, will it sound more academic?

[Extreme Z7]

I once called an arrogant Scientism defender (as in they explicitly defend Scientism as objective good) a "Rationalist Nerd". They responded by saying they are connected to Reality.

Sometime later, they tried to argue that the morality of Slavery is completely based on history, and that if in the future most people are okay with slavery then there would be nothing wrong with that. This was because they were getting triggered for being called out that worshipping Pragmatism makes one selfish and evil.

Some more time later, before they blocked me, they were calling leftists "ghouls" for making fun of Jordan Peterson for tearing up over the "marginalization of incels". They accused the left of making fun of men for expressing emotions. (This was after they told me point blank that they believe emotions and ethics are meaningless)

Extreme Rationalism is quite attractive to emotionally-unstable lunatics. How curious.

Edited 18 hours ago by Extreme Z7

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Vibes said:

Thanks Leo! I'm excited to watch it.

Do you plan on releasing one part per week or some other schedule? 

Probably one every 2 weeks.

If I release too fast they get less views.

[Hojo]

@r0ckyreedIts like you using yourself to say you dont exist. It works cause who else is going to say it not ironic because no one else can do that you have to do it. Its almost ironic to think anything but logic can use logic to tell you it dosent exist.

Edited 14 hours ago by Hojo

[ExploringReality]

What is rationality? Really. Is the universe Rational? Is a human Rational? Or is a human a very complex survival organism that uses a slice of infinite intelligence to serve its survival in irrational and rational ways? Are rational people truly rational. Is rationality dangerous? What are the pros and cons of constructing an identity of being a rational person? Also what is beyond rationality? These are delicious questions and I absolutely love this stuff

Edited 11 hours ago by ExploringReality

[ExploringReality]

The deepest conversation of God as man of God as man.

Self reflection is infinite.

Self is paradox.

Edited 11 hours ago by ExploringReality

[Someone here]

I don't know man . I think it's a repeated topic. You don't have to keep pumbing content.  Take your time completely to post new stuff. 

I would love an episode about :

-understanding religion. 

-understanding sexuality. 

 

[Leo Gura]

No one comprehends the significance of the topic.

[Terell Kirby]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No one comprehends the significance of the topic.

Well a lot of us don’t understand what rationality is and its importance to the individual and collective survival of the human species-not to mention culture at large. Not understanding it causes us to dismiss the value of deconstructing it.

Take idea of linear causation-which is a birthed from the rationalist worldview . Deconstructing linear causation changes so many fundamental aspects of how we interpret what’s happening in reality. Subtle but carries heavy implications that takes months-years to integrate (I have direct experience of this).

I hope the video spends a great deal of time getting a proper understanding of rationality as a worldview, its relative importance as well as its limits in the realm of spirituality, epistemology and consciousness work. Of course tying it all back to God.

Tall task! Looking forward to the next episode.

Edited 3 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[ExploringReality]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No one comprehends the significance of the topic.

I do not know! I am genuinely curious and in awe of the fact that I do not know. I am open to being conscious of the nature of this topic 

[Jodistrict]

I have lately been getting interested in the philosopher Alfred Whitehead.   Even though he was a mathematical genius, he was very aware of the limitations of abstraction and reasoning.

Here are some quotes:

The real is always richer than the rational

“Pure rationalism is a disease of the intellect.”
— Process and Reality (paraphrased more literally as: “Rationalism is an abstraction, and when taken in isolation, it is a disease.”)

A science which hesitates to challenge its own foundations is lost.”
— Science and the Modern World

“We are in the world, not as thinkers looking at it, but as actors in its drama.”
— Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect

“Science is rooted in the faith that the order of nature can be rationally traced.”
— Science and the Modern World

“There is no such thing as a merely scientific method of apprehending reality. Science is the study of what is repeatable; but life is full of **unique events.”
— Process and Reality

 

[Reciprocality]

@Leo Gura  Will the video involve paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic, fussy logic, mereology, process philosophy, coherence theory of truth and underdetermination as a basis for a holistic or relativistic alternatives to what you see as rigid rationality?

Will you explore the developmental and phenomenological origins of concepts, the fallacy of reification and overextension that rationality unawaringly often commits to with regard to those? Will you explore the history of rationalistic ontology and epistemology and connect these to the problems holistic approaches solves? Will you explore the connection between paradox / self-reference to variable-quantification in first order classical logic, if so how do you do this without proposing a correspondence theory of truth with subject-criterions? Why would paradox be a property inherent to rationality if it can be avoided by better logics?

[Reciprocality]

How will your critique handle the concepts of essence, independence and necessity, each supervening in the same way on the humanly every-day practice of reasoning?

How primitive will you treat the concept of negation as being? And how do you utilise this concept without regressing to the rationality you criticise?

Will you have a general account of the difference between concepts or principles that are contextually bound and not contextually bound--or will you deny invariance altogether and propose complete pluralism?