Thought as rationalism

[Holiday20310401]

At some point in our mind while processing an instance or relative instances and finding the truth to something is rationalism inevitably going to be a part of the thoughts?

What acting in life, what potential do ideas, or events in one's mind have if not rationalized somewhat? I mean sure we don't have to rely on rationalism but when seeking the truth in a philosophy forum it only seems appropriate to rationalize.!!!!

Also, as a side note, if God is not meant to be rationalized then what basis does it have in our existence that is of any use. Fundamentals are within ourselves, its physical being is nonsense, and when rationalized truth is conveyed in a much more credible manner.

Where am I going wrong here?

[mashiaj]

every thought is rational, the concept of god is rational in some grade but not at all. the emotions is what seems to be irrational.

[Doobah47]

Mental disorder is in my opinion far more common than the diagnoses of mental illness. The use of reason in the mind is often replaced by delusion - the decision to drink irresponsibly, deluded by pleasure and compulsion, resulting in severe poisoning - some might call it idiocy if an individual knows that strong spirits are lethal, yet still decides to drink into a coma; deluded is the decision, although it seems less of a conscious decision based in reason, more like a trance whithin which delusion provides the reason. A second example might be the pursuit of money in order to provide pleasure, although deviously promoted by profiteers, money is not a necessity when seeking pleasure; if those with riches shared and provided pleasure to others then money would be negated - the delusion is that one cannot survive without free flowing cash. Reason would say that companionship and sharing would provide more pleasure than hedonist individual consumption, but the wealthy still seem to be trapped in a whirligig of desirable objects.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

At some point in our mind while processing an instance or relative instances and finding the truth to something is rationalism inevitably going to be a part of the thoughts?

... can the concept of "truth" exist without "rationalism"; can the concept of "rationalism" exist without "truth"? ... does a wild bear seek "truth" or just its next meal? ... certainly there are ways of being in the world that are not rational - but at the same time nor are they truth-seeking ... could it be that the search for the "truth" is by definition "rationalism"?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... can the concept of "truth" exist without "rationalism"; can the concept of "rationalism" exist without "truth"? ... does a wild bear seek "truth" or just its next meal? ... certainly there are ways of being in the world that are not rational - but at the same time nor are they truth-seeking ... could it be that the search for the "truth" is by definition "rationalism"?

paulhanke,

Yes one can know truth without rationalism, the lions truth to its hunger is the warm flesh of its prey. As far as we know man is the only animal to form concepts but I think this general understanding can be reasonably challenged. Every organism knows the truth, the truth is its experience of the world, it may not form complex arrangements of concepts but its knowledge of truth is immediate, the purest of truths are always of the experience of the moment, truth is empirical and immediate.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

Yes one can know truth without rationalism ...

... no argument there ... but living the truth and seeking the truth may be two different things entirely - and I think Holiday's initial question was leaning more toward the latter than the former

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... no argument there ... but living the truth and seeking the truth may be two different things entirely - and I think Holiday's initial question was leaning more toward the latter than the former

paulhanke,

Seeking the truth then, would be seeking experience, yes I think I see, this could be rationalism, it would be like rationizing coordinates, but you would already know what you are seeking, as in where you wanted to go for said experience. Am I missing something?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

paulhanke,

Seeking the truth then, would be seeking experience, yes I think I see, this could be rationalism, it would be like rationizing coordinates, but you would already know what you are seeking, as in where you wanted to go for said experience. Am I missing something?

... I'll have to let Holiday weigh in on that - it's his question (and I could be the one missing something ) ...

[Holiday20310401]

I'm here. Sorry I haven't posted on this one for a while.

About the boar, bear of whatever. The finding of its next meal is its truth and dependency of surivival. If it can't eat then it will die. If it can then it will perpetuate as a being, aware. As a species, genetically, it would adapt to the truth for survival, by the rational process of deduction I suppose.

Then the rational process becomes the truth as intuition (genetic code), translated to emotion. Hunger. Well, if hunger is an emotion, it is a response and thats suits this just fine.

So truth comes through rationalism even if it does not process during one's existence. As we live though, experience requires thought at some kind of level(not critical particularily) to make it truth. I don't see why we would seek experience, because we have no choice but to.

Experience allows for truth and the force of conversion is rationalism, which in turn relies upon memory for relation. Rationalism would be use for developing truth.

Living the truth requires no rationalism b/c one could rely on other people to tell them what to do, or to simply rely on instinct. That's not to say its rational b/c our environment changes and then so must the instincts that are meant to adapt the being to survive in its current environment. (correct me if it seems wrong).

[boagie]

Holiday,

I maintain that truth is the experience of the relation between subject and object, coupled with the understanding of that relational experience by its biology as say, its hot! Truth is empirical and immediate. A stimulus reaction system requires no rationalism, instinct is such a system and just as there is no rationalism in instinct, there is no rationalism in the immediate experience of truth. I find your post a little confusing but that may be on my part. I shall read it more carefully and try to bridge the gap between our understandings.