I enjoyed Carol Gilligan's input. In A Different Voice is an important book. I'd suggest that part of the problem is the way in which rationality and reasonableness are used synonymously. Rationality, with its associations with 'logic', tends, at least in everyday usage, including by "intelligent people", to trade in absolutes, e.g., famously, the Law on Non-contradiction. That's fine when you are, indeed, working in an area that lends itself to metrics and measurables. But it's not just useless but an actual encumbrance when dealing with aspects of the human situation which cannot be measured, or not other than stupidly. Here you need to rely on reasonableness, which isn't just 'having reasons' but also accepting that other people, too, have reasons, and they may not coincide with yours. Taken as such, the ground of human interaction is, as Gilligan points out, necessarily relational and, to be successful, depends on care, goodwill, and give and take. Rationalists aren't much interested in these forms of human concern ("facts don't have feelings") and so bludgeon their way to their own prejudices, which, for the reasons Shermer points out, they don't recognise.
Perhaps we should distinguish between reason and logic, as discussing rationality is a rationalization in itself. Reason is a human interpretation of logic, as variable as humans are apt to be, which makes discussion necessarily vague and conclusions far from absolute. Descartes 'i think therefore i am' has the same flaw, the term *'therefore'* leverages absolute logic where reason is more appropriate. He might have said "I am capable of independent thought, which suggests existence on some plane' - to acknowledge the role of reason and uncertainty.
What all the disciplines advise from religion to philosophy to psychology is what is called the middle way or negotiating a path between opposites; between reason and feeling. We live not in unity but in a dual system. Sometimes one perspective, or one course of action is right in a different situation it may not be. That is why all the disciplines advise negotiating a path between opposites as the right way to go. I was cut off from the video so I do not know whether that was discussed or not so I am bringing it up here.
Well you’re looking at it from a Cartesian standpoint versus the Neoplatonic standpoint. The disembodiment of the mind and body is the Cartesian belief while Neoplatonism would argue that you must be embodied in reality (that’s the unity) but that we see our lives flowing through the transjective state between objective reality and subjective conscious experience. So if you believe we live in some sort of objective reality it would be really hard to rationalize that our subjective experience is not unified in the reality. If you believe in a subjective reality or that one may exist in a hallucination, you still have to ground the hallucination onto some reality since we know hallucination does not exist without a reality underpinning it, that is why you can never get rid of the unity between mind and body. I also believe in the middle way, that’s also known as metaxu, also known as the transjective, but i don’t believe in a Cartesian notion of the middle way, nor does any religion disembody the mind and the body which breaks the unity. So i don’t know where you got the notion of duality and the way being compatible.
@@henrytep8884 I would go with consciousness being fundamental and mind as elemental, and the physical or gross as elemental emerging with quantum events. The Eastern perspective is of three dimensions: causal (ideas); Mind (elemental) and the gross physical also elemental. The West has the mind/body problem because it doesn’t distinguish between consciousness (fundamental); mind (cognitive); and the sense mind; or bodily sensation; in Eastern religion and philosophy as separate dimensions and bodies. Darwinism posits one body; the physical or elemental, and all including consciousness supposedly arises from that. Although now consciousness is ‘the hard problem’.
why is this conversation so fast? it's so strange to choose this specific subject and then rush it. you make it look like there's something wrong with having a conversation.
@@fffranz it seems that these are merely the introductory statements which then proceeded into the longer conversation. If you enjoyed this clip, you may be able to find the whole event/discussion on their website.
Rationality should not be confused with rationalizing. Rationalizing is backing into accepting a hypothesis as true by not eliminating interference by testing how its not. Thats why a hypothesis proven to be reliable is so intuitive that most people think what a waste of effort to prove it. Meanwhile there are an infinite number of incompletely tested hypothesis being promoted as rational truths that are only defensible with violent emotional reaction.
11:48 "separation reason from emotion rather than being apigy of cognitive development... I mean the achievement of rationality, which is how it was seen by psychologists, was in face a manifestation of injury or trauma" - when she was saying this, did she realized that she was separating reasoning from emotion? She did what she denies.
Certainly reason can be separate from emotion, but only theorerically. Its evident that the Atistotelian-Thomistic tradition on this subject is unknown to this people.
One view on things in the past too, is their view of rationality being the highest good was likley based on the fact that “rationality” can be scaled, relationships can’t be as easily
The woman talking last was a prime example of not using reason to structure a speech. She was all over the place, I could not even make out what her point was. Compare that to the speech of the first two speakers.
This notion of rationality is such a modern one, and yeah I am against that type of "rationality" though I wouldn't call it that, the concept of rationality will change depending on your metaphysics and theology, and if you lack these then rationality for you will be just a set of systems superimposed on reality, thus rationality will be more related to trauma than to reason. To reason traditionally is no understood as something men do and women don't, reason is a spiritual faculty which makes us all capax Dei, capable of God, men and women, it's not a faculty of the brain nor the senses, nor of material corporeal faculties, it's a noetic faculty that canis capable of seeing reality and abstracting from the sensible reality what is beyond matter into the essential nature of things. It is in this sense that corporeal faculties can either work towards a better rationality or to lessen your rational capacities, because the material, sensitive and the spiritual intelligible are not separated but united essentially in human beings so that one always affects the other and are codependent for their proper functioning. Rationality has to do with the capacity to relate distinct aspects of reality in a coherent integral manner, rationality and relationality are extremely linked, to be able to see patterns in reality is due to reason, to be able to distinguish things from each other is due to reason, to be able to relate things is there because of reason. The problem is not rationality, the problem has to do with "distinctionism" which is the tendency to analize reality taxonomically, and super impose categories tyrannically over nature, and that it's caused by trauma of course, the trauma of separation, the trauma of divorce, the trauma of rupture in general, the trauma that causes the incapacity for men and women to work together for a higher purpose, the trauma that causes you to either distinguish and separate everything in reality or to mix and relativize everything in reality. But to say that reason and rationality is the issue is to not understand what reason actually is.
Freud: men can think rationally and not be impacted by feelings or relationships. Stock: wrong Me: thank you Kathleen Stock for correcting the notion that psychopathic thinking is good for our species. Thinking like yours gives us hope that our species can survive and thrive.
@@jamescastro2037 everyone is doing that. You for example, instead of thinking that your level of rationality is not universal, you rationalize it as "must be a kid!" . No. Humans are not made in a factory. People have different ways.
@@zerotwo7319 you are correct about me rationalizing it as must be a kid. We are products of America, we have a number and a cost. We sell ourselves everyday. Can you think about the world without numbers or money justifying your thoughts? In order for everyone to have their own way is to get beyond the (uni)verse and let everyone have their voice. Science is trying to manufacture this via the (multi)verse, but it is still producing an end product. Us. Short for United States.
@@jamescastro2037 If your frame of thinking is about an abstraction of money and numbers and quantification, it will be, and you will only perceive it around you. It is a cool trick, for a religious person their frame of reference is God and there is nothing outside of it. For you, it is money or watherever propaganda you are vulnerable to. (and there will be nothing outside it) Your propaganda that is communism is just another religion. It is not impressive. there is plenty outside numbers.
Welcome to the human mind. Check out that Medical brain Surgery where they wplit the brain into two. It explain alot. There are seemingly several on going consciousnees processens in our mind, almost like a personality of their own. Ever had a thought you don't agree with? They arise in these areas.
And who has not been injured or traumatised? To a greater or lesser extent, we all are damaged physically and mentally; we heal, hopefully, but damage leaves scars. In that way, our capacity to function is impaired. It might be in some small, inconsequential way or, unfortunately, severely affected. The physical damage might be very apparent. The loss of a limb and others will respond. If the damage is mental, there will be nothing in the way which says for sure that the damage is recognised for what it is; often, it is at these junctures where difficulties begin, which in turn can exacerbate the original injury, and the sufferer is often our shared humanity.
Naa these radfems were cloned from 70s stock radfems who attacked trans people and lost the abortion debate in the process , just like in the US today.
As a feminist Kathleen Stock has contributed significantly to the collapse of rationality. A time will come when people will recognize feminism as the fount and source of the pervasive irrational thought in society.
The first person was too busy being being captain obvious plus awkward preaching in the beginning to make a nontrivial point. The second person almost got somewhere but got downright nihilistic towards the end. The third person picked up where the first left off on the preaching, didn't even answer the question. Poor Shermer having to share that stage lol
Rationality is overrated. Just look at Europe today. We're rationalizing our own extinction. We need a radical comeback of passion and romanticism like we had a hundred years ago.
Your "extinction" is not rational, but a consequence of your past choices. You chose socialism to appease the workers, you chose not to be a powerhouse, you chose to worship nonsense about everyone being equal before God, that being rich is a sin. Or whatever nonsense "the good book says" Taste the fruits of your choices.
While I also despise the Republican Party, I wouldn't say the Democrats are any more rational. In fact, they spent 4 years protesting police violence, then elected an old racist and a prosecutor lady cop and they immediately gave more money to the police as well as to the Pentagon. And Democrats see no problem with this? That's illogical and unreasonable
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Carol Gillian is absolutely BRILLIANT! And the most articulate person I’ve heard in a long time.
I enjoyed Carol Gilligan's input. In A Different Voice is an important book. I'd suggest that part of the problem is the way in which rationality and reasonableness are used synonymously. Rationality, with its associations with 'logic', tends, at least in everyday usage, including by "intelligent people", to trade in absolutes, e.g., famously, the Law on Non-contradiction. That's fine when you are, indeed, working in an area that lends itself to metrics and measurables. But it's not just useless but an actual encumbrance when dealing with aspects of the human situation which cannot be measured, or not other than stupidly. Here you need to rely on reasonableness, which isn't just 'having reasons' but also accepting that other people, too, have reasons, and they may not coincide with yours. Taken as such, the ground of human interaction is, as Gilligan points out, necessarily relational and, to be successful, depends on care, goodwill, and give and take. Rationalists aren't much interested in these forms of human concern ("facts don't have feelings") and so bludgeon their way to their own prejudices, which, for the reasons Shermer points out, they don't recognise.
Perhaps we should distinguish between reason and logic, as discussing rationality is a rationalization in itself. Reason is a human interpretation of logic, as variable as humans are apt to be, which makes discussion necessarily vague and conclusions far from absolute. Descartes 'i think therefore i am' has the same flaw, the term *'therefore'* leverages absolute logic where reason is more appropriate. He might have said "I am capable of independent thought, which suggests existence on some plane' - to acknowledge the role of reason and uncertainty.
What all the disciplines advise from religion to philosophy to psychology is what is called the middle way or negotiating a path between opposites; between reason and feeling. We live not in unity but in a dual system. Sometimes one perspective, or one course of action is right in a different situation it may not be. That is why all the disciplines advise negotiating a path between opposites as the right way to go.
I was cut off from the video so I do not know whether that was discussed or not so I am bringing it up here.
Your comment is not correct. Not all disciplines share this view. For one thing every "discipline" has many opposing systems of thought.
Well you’re looking at it from a Cartesian standpoint versus the Neoplatonic standpoint. The disembodiment of the mind and body is the Cartesian belief while Neoplatonism would argue that you must be embodied in reality (that’s the unity) but that we see our lives flowing through the transjective state between objective reality and subjective conscious experience. So if you believe we live in some sort of objective reality it would be really hard to rationalize that our subjective experience is not unified in the reality. If you believe in a subjective reality or that one may exist in a hallucination, you still have to ground the hallucination onto some reality since we know hallucination does not exist without a reality underpinning it, that is why you can never get rid of the unity between mind and body.
I also believe in the middle way, that’s also known as metaxu, also known as the transjective, but i don’t believe in a Cartesian notion of the middle way, nor does any religion disembody the mind and the body which breaks the unity. So i don’t know where you got the notion of duality and the way being compatible.
@@henrytep8884 I would go with consciousness being fundamental and mind as elemental, and the physical or gross as elemental emerging with quantum events.
The Eastern perspective is of three dimensions: causal (ideas); Mind (elemental) and the gross physical also elemental.
The West has the mind/body problem because it doesn’t distinguish between consciousness (fundamental); mind (cognitive); and the sense mind; or bodily sensation; in Eastern religion and philosophy as separate dimensions and bodies.
Darwinism posits one body; the physical or elemental, and all including consciousness supposedly arises from that. Although now consciousness is ‘the hard problem’.
Duality is illusory
why is this conversation so fast? it's so strange to choose this specific subject and then rush it. you make it look like there's something wrong with having a conversation.
@@fffranz it seems that these are merely the introductory statements which then proceeded into the longer conversation. If you enjoyed this clip, you may be able to find the whole event/discussion on their website.
I agree.
Can’t afford it I’m on pension
Introductory statements
Rationality should not be confused with rationalizing. Rationalizing is backing into accepting a hypothesis as true by not eliminating interference by testing how its not. Thats why a hypothesis proven to be reliable is so intuitive that most people think what a waste of effort to prove it. Meanwhile there are an infinite number of incompletely tested hypothesis being promoted as rational truths that are only defensible with violent emotional reaction.
That last speech was very interesting.
11:48 "separation reason from emotion rather than being apigy of cognitive development... I mean the achievement of rationality, which is how it was seen by psychologists, was in face a manifestation of injury or trauma" - when she was saying this, did she realized that she was separating reasoning from emotion? She did what she denies.
Diversity hires are not required to think or prepare, she just came there to be
Fascinating that condemnations of Freud's or Piaget's alleged sexism are simply proposed as wrong, with no real argument.
90% of these particular philosophers ideas work that way. They mislable their preferred arbitrarity (often bigoted) as reason and logic.
What did she say ?
That lady at the end
Cain Killed Able
I'm confused about that myself
Certainly reason can be separate from emotion, but only theorerically. Its evident that the Atistotelian-Thomistic tradition on this subject is unknown to this people.
One view on things in the past too, is their view of rationality being the highest good was likley based on the fact that “rationality” can be scaled, relationships can’t be as easily
Why do smart people never understand hair gel uses? 🤔
The woman talking last was a prime example of not using reason to structure a speech. She was all over the place, I could not even make out what her point was. Compare that to the speech of the first two speakers.
Terfs, racists, eugenicists; there's a lot of evidence their inconsistent thinkers in their other ideas; just saying.
This notion of rationality is such a modern one, and yeah I am against that type of "rationality" though I wouldn't call it that, the concept of rationality will change depending on your metaphysics and theology, and if you lack these then rationality for you will be just a set of systems superimposed on reality, thus rationality will be more related to trauma than to reason. To reason traditionally is no understood as something men do and women don't, reason is a spiritual faculty which makes us all capax Dei, capable of God, men and women, it's not a faculty of the brain nor the senses, nor of material corporeal faculties, it's a noetic faculty that canis capable of seeing reality and abstracting from the sensible reality what is beyond matter into the essential nature of things. It is in this sense that corporeal faculties can either work towards a better rationality or to lessen your rational capacities, because the material, sensitive and the spiritual intelligible are not separated but united essentially in human beings so that one always affects the other and are codependent for their proper functioning. Rationality has to do with the capacity to relate distinct aspects of reality in a coherent integral manner, rationality and relationality are extremely linked, to be able to see patterns in reality is due to reason, to be able to distinguish things from each other is due to reason, to be able to relate things is there because of reason. The problem is not rationality, the problem has to do with "distinctionism" which is the tendency to analize reality taxonomically, and super impose categories tyrannically over nature, and that it's caused by trauma of course, the trauma of separation, the trauma of divorce, the trauma of rupture in general, the trauma that causes the incapacity for men and women to work together for a higher purpose, the trauma that causes you to either distinguish and separate everything in reality or to mix and relativize everything in reality. But to say that reason and rationality is the issue is to not understand what reason actually is.
Freud: men can think rationally and not be impacted by feelings or relationships.
Stock: wrong
Me: thank you Kathleen Stock for correcting the notion that psychopathic thinking is good for our species. Thinking like yours gives us hope that our species can survive and thrive.
... a pity that it stops where it gets interesting..
When you cannot find reason, you use emotion to rationalize your logic. Sounds like a kid to me.
@@jamescastro2037 everyone is doing that. You for example, instead of thinking that your level of rationality is not universal, you rationalize it as "must be a kid!" . No. Humans are not made in a factory. People have different ways.
@@zerotwo7319 you are correct about me rationalizing it as must be a kid. We are products of America, we have a number and a cost. We sell ourselves everyday. Can you think about the world without numbers or money justifying your thoughts? In order for everyone to have their own way is to get beyond the (uni)verse and let everyone have their voice. Science is trying to manufacture this via the (multi)verse, but it is still producing an end product. Us. Short for United States.
@@jamescastro2037 If your frame of thinking is about an abstraction of money and numbers and quantification, it will be, and you will only perceive it around you.
It is a cool trick, for a religious person their frame of reference is God and there is nothing outside of it. For you, it is money or watherever propaganda you are vulnerable to. (and there will be nothing outside it)
Your propaganda that is communism is just another religion. It is not impressive.
there is plenty outside numbers.
Welcome to the human mind. Check out that Medical brain Surgery where they wplit the brain into two. It explain alot.
There are seemingly several on going consciousnees processens in our mind, almost like a personality of their own.
Ever had a thought you don't agree with? They arise in these areas.
And who has not been injured or traumatised? To a greater or lesser extent, we all are damaged physically and mentally; we heal, hopefully, but damage leaves scars. In that way, our capacity to function is impaired. It might be in some small, inconsequential way or, unfortunately, severely affected. The physical damage might be very apparent. The loss of a limb and others will respond. If the damage is mental, there will be nothing in the way which says for sure that the damage is recognised for what it is; often, it is at these junctures where difficulties begin, which in turn can exacerbate the original injury, and the sufferer is often our shared humanity.
Comment. Talk. Comment!
"Who is the Foot in that question?" Andrapodon. Adam people.
Right Carol Gilligan, In reality there is no rhyme, or reason, I.T. just I.S.:Telepathic Information System.
Was Hannah Arendt listened to?
Naa these radfems were cloned from 70s stock radfems who attacked trans people and lost the abortion debate in the process , just like in the US today.
Rationality has its limits.
As a feminist Kathleen Stock has contributed significantly to the collapse of rationality. A time will come when people will recognize feminism as the fount and source of the pervasive irrational thought in society.
Can you elaborate?
@@pooman2No, he can’t because he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Irl vira1340 and Stock probably both irrationally hate the disabled's "expensive" entitlements and trans folk, not too mention non-wesyern women.
The first person was too busy being being captain obvious plus awkward preaching in the beginning to make a nontrivial point.
The second person almost got somewhere but got downright nihilistic towards the end.
The third person picked up where the first left off on the preaching, didn't even answer the question.
Poor Shermer having to share that stage lol
Does bad desire and emotions is real@reality. Love the way how al Ghazali describe "self".
Rationality is overrated. Just look at Europe today. We're rationalizing our own extinction. We need a radical comeback of passion and romanticism like we had a hundred years ago.
I remember a German guy who said that, he did something bad I think
@@jeremyt4292 Bad for who?
@@Stoddardian gays, anarchists, communists, Jews, romani, people in favor of democracy, social and political intellectuals among others
@@Stoddardian bad for the 70 million people who died because of him
Your "extinction" is not rational, but a consequence of your past choices. You chose socialism to appease the workers, you chose not to be a powerhouse, you chose to worship nonsense about everyone being equal before God, that being rich is a sin. Or whatever nonsense "the good book says" Taste the fruits of your choices.
Life at the end of reason? IOW ЯёрцЫёсдл Рдятч!
While I also despise the Republican Party, I wouldn't say the Democrats are any more rational. In fact, they spent 4 years protesting police violence, then elected an old racist and a prosecutor lady cop and they immediately gave more money to the police as well as to the Pentagon. And Democrats see no problem with this? That's illogical and unreasonable
Aries = Autocracy = change
Taurus = Presidential = guidance
Gemini = Bicameral = conversation
Cancer = Dictatorship = feelings
Leo = Oligarchy = familiarity
Virgo = Socialism = order
Libra = Democracy = balance
Scorpio = Anarchy = patience
Sagittarius = Theocracy = drive
Capricorn = Technocracy = focus
Aquarius = Communism = creative
Pisces = Republic = social
Pagan = can be just as dogmatic and arbitrarily discriminatory as any Abrahamian
Stunningly empty conversation.
The 70s called they want their pseudointellectual radfems back.