It may appear so, but I don't think I am. If we all sought power, we would be mired in deception. If we all had money without something orderly to spend it on, the money would be worthless.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:45 pmYou seem to be lost.Systematic wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:50 am I believe that we, the human race, have been mistaken in our quest for money and power. Those two are the mirages of success. We cannot be successful in any endeavor of which we cannot know the outcome. It might just vanish tomorrow. The only way to know the outcome ahead of time is for there to be order. The only way for there to be order, is for humanity to forge order from the chaos. Order is the true gold. Order ensures success to any sensible person. Otherwise logic is useless for all but puzzles, and life is just a box of chocolates; and you might not like what you get.
For all things philosophical.
You are stuck with a dualism between rationality and irrationality, effectively making both intertwined and inseperable.Systematic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:27 amOrder, including the forms, is arbitrary. But it seems better than chaos to have arbitrary order, arbitrarily fashioned to capacity. It's my opinion that capacity is better than incapacity. It's my opinion that it's rational. And it's my opinion that rationality is better than irrationality. If I be incorrect, then all who have obeyed will have wasted their own time. But destruction of capacity can be achieved using capacity. So it still seems the better wager to accomplish first. Certainly easier to eliminate than its opposite.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:22 pm
Yes, you are absolutely correct about imperatives...or rather authority statements.
Take the fallacy of authority for example...this is an authority statement.
All philosophical argument, as an act of creation, is a statement of order where existence acts as it's own authoritative structure over the absence of being "void", by it's own nature. In these respects it takes on a Neitzchian expression of the will by form alone.
Platonic forms, observes the trillemic nature of all arguments, are inseparable from an irrational will with this irrationality being a synonym to "continuum" where all forms are irrational in the respect of this continuous nature is never fully define.
I may have to elaborate this point.
1+2=3 is a rational statement.
It is irrational as it can be applied to an infinite number of phenomena in one respect, in another respect 1+2=3 can be composed of or composes an infinite number of equations.
This "chaotic" indefinite nature requires some form of continuum.
1+2=3 may be applied to a continuum of qualities and thus as a continuum always requires a basic linear nature. It make be applied to oranges, or horses or the strictly just a repeated practice in time (first graders writing it down). In these respects it always is a linear projection within time if "localized" as its own abstract phenomenon. 1+2=3, as an applied perspective, exists through the linear flow of time as it is fundamentally repeated again and again and again.
This continuum, where the phenomenon exists (in this case the dynamic act of 1+2=3 being counted), effectively exists as "rational" or a "relation" of parts. A first grade class, every year, practices 1+2=3. This repeats every year (for example maybe in the first half of the year in september), so that 1+2=3 as a continuum, maintains a "rational" nature, of existing every september through the context of "practicing math". This continuum, repeated every september (as this september is a continuum) shows a continuum existing relative to another continuum, thus "rationality".
Rationality, or "a ratio", is strictly an observance of a relation of contexts...the "contexts" in this case being: september, practice, 1st grade, etc. These contexts always exist as continuums in and of themselves.
In these respects 1+2+3, as subject to context, always has some rational nature even when observing it as a continuum that is indefinite due to the progression of time.
The same applies for how many equations it "exists within" (or is composed of):
where x, y and z are an infinite number of, pardon the pun, "numbers as equations":
etc. for the progression of second equation as a continuum of infinitely subtracting numbers.
Thus chaos can alway be "known" as strictly a replication of fundamental contexts within context.
I didn't mean that chaos was entirely without anyone's knowledge. Presumably, it still obeys the laws of physics, chemistry, and geometry. But its vast array of variables make it impossible to predict.
However, we can predict, to a much higher degree, the physic of lifeforms. And, we can, due to its order/structure.
It's not so much that everything is unknowable as: What mind could comprehend such a large amount of variables? I'm assuming atheism.
1. If atheism, minds have a limited number of variables that can be understood/predicted.
2. If understood variables be limited, chaos is an agent of ignorance.
3. If chaos be an agent of ignorance AND if knowledge be preferable, we should limit chaos.