Rationalism

[PoetPhilosopher]

I did a thread on Existentialism. I now want to do one on Rationalism.

Rationalism - Wikipedia

So Rationalism is the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Rationalists sometimes claim that they can discover universal truths by using their intellect alone, without relying on sensory experience or emotions. However, rationalism has some serious flaws as well.

One of the criticisms of rationalism is that it ignores the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in human decision making. Emotions are not irrational impulses that distort our reasoning, but rather components of our mental processes that help us evaluate situations, motivate actions, and communicate with others. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions, and it is crucial for social skills, empathy, and I'd say creativity as well.

Another problem with rationalism is that it seeks to deify intelligence as the ultimate measure of human worth and potential. Rationalists tend to view intelligence as something that determines one's abilities and achievements. They also at times may be dismissive of those who do not share their views or methods. However, intelligence is not a single entity, but rather a complex and dynamic construct that can be influenced by various factors such as environment, education, and motivation. Also, intelligence is not the only or the most important factor that contributes to human success and happiness. There are many other qualities and skills that are equally or more valuable, such as wisdom, compassion, curiosity, and morality.

So, rationalism is a narrow and incomplete way of understanding the world and ourselves. It fails to account for the richness and diversity of human experience and expression. It also neglects the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence in our brain and social functioning. Rationalism does not lead us to the truth, but rather to a distorted and fragmented version of reality, where one tries to put an idea of "intelligence" on a platform/pedastal, and potentially try to increase it and I dare say at the expense of other human attributes.

 

[exchemist]

I did a thread on Existentialism. I now want to do one on Rationalism.

Rationalism - Wikipedia

So Rationalism is the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Rationalists sometimes claim that they can discover universal truths by using their intellect alone, without relying on sensory experience or emotions. However, rationalism has some serious flaws as well.

One of the criticisms of rationalism is that it ignores the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in human decision making. Emotions are not irrational impulses that distort our reasoning, but rather components of our mental processes that help us evaluate situations, motivate actions, and communicate with others. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions, and it is crucial for social skills, empathy, and I'd say creativity as well.

Another problem with rationalism is that it seeks to deify intelligence as the ultimate measure of human worth and potential. Rationalists tend to view intelligence as something that determines one's abilities and achievements. They also at times may be dismissive of those who do not share their views or methods. However, intelligence is not a single entity, but rather a complex and dynamic construct that can be influenced by various factors such as environment, education, and motivation. Also, intelligence is not the only or the most important factor that contributes to human success and happiness. There are many other qualities and skills that are equally or more valuable, such as wisdom, compassion, curiosity, and morality.

So, rationalism is a narrow and incomplete way of understanding the world and ourselves. It fails to account for the richness and diversity of human experience and expression. It also neglects the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence in our brain and social functioning. Rationalism does not lead us to the truth, but rather to a distorted and fragmented version of reality, where one tries to put an idea of "intelligence" on a platform/pedastal, and potentially try to increase it and I dare say at the expense of other human attributes.

But surely the formulation and adoption of the concept of "emotional intelligence" is a rationalist way of recognising an extra feature of human capability, isn't it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But surely the formulation and adoption of the concept of "emotional intelligence" is a rationalist way of recognising an extra feature of human capability, isn't it?

Great question!

I'd say that the concept of emotional intelligence is not strictly rationalist or irrationalist in nature, but rather a combination of both.

Irrationalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[wellwisher]

There are four psychological functions; intellect, emotion, sensation and intuition. These are the four different ways humans orientate to reality. This is based on the work of Carl Jung.

Intellect is connected to reasoning; premises, ideas and sensory data, emotions are connected to the emotional tags added during the memory writing process; emotional thinking. Sensation is sensory, with the Epicurean orientating by filling their senses to the max. Intuition is similar to sensory but uses internal sensory systems; gut feelings, and is often the basis for faith.

One is not better than the others, but rather we all use all four, to various degrees, with their order, often genetically based; our natural disposition. Depending on how the four are ordered, will give each of us a different approach to reality. My order is intuitive, intellect, sensory and emotions. The last of the four is most unconscious, and often has a more spontaneous element to it. The first and second are most under conscious control and will. The third is sort of the bridge between the conscious and unconscious; projection.

Rationalism is most important to those whose intellect is in their top one or two. If someone had the order emotion, sensory, intuitive and intellect, for example, that ordering would favor emotional intelligence, since it is based on internal and external sensory data, and natural emotional memory tags added to their memory content. Their intellect is more unconscious and spontaneous.

The pure Epicurean would be sensory, emotion, intellect and intuition. They orientate based on filling the senses and feeling good. Intuition would be last, adding an unconscious and spontaneous element; seek new stimulus.

If we understand these ordering of the four functions difference, are innate, there is something to learn from all people, since we, all may have different combinations in strength in terms of the four functions. There is not one size that fits all; humans see from many angles.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There are four psychological functions; intellect, emotion, sensation and intuition. These are the four different ways humans orientate to reality. This is based on the work of Carl Jung.

Intellect is connected to reasoning; premises, ideas and sensory data, emotions are connected to the emotional tags added during the memory writing process; emotional thinking. Sensation is sensory, with the Epicurean orientating by filling their senses to the max. Intuition is similar to sensory but uses internal sensory systems; gut feelings, and is often the basis for faith.

One is not better than the others, but rather we all use all four, to various degrees, with their order, often genetically based; our natural disposition. Depending on how the four are ordered, will give each of us a different approach to reality. My order is intuitive, intellect, sensory and emotions. The last of the four is most unconscious, and often has a more spontaneous element to it. The first and second are most under conscious control and will. The third is sort of the bridge between the conscious and unconscious; projection.

Rationalism is most important to those whose intellect is in their top one or two. If someone had the order emotion, sensory, intuitive and intellect, for example, that ordering would favor emotional intelligence, since it is based on internal and external sensory data, and natural emotional memory tags added to their memory content. Their intellect is more unconscious and spontaneous.

The pure Epicurean would be sensory, emotion, intellect and intuition. They orientate based on filling the senses and feeling good. Intuition would be last, adding an unconscious and spontaneous element; seek new stimulus.

If we understand these ordering of the four functions difference, are innate, there is something to learn from all people, since we, all may have different combinations in strength in terms of the four functions. There is not one size that fits all; humans see from many angles.

That makes sense. That's a great way of looking at things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

rationalism is a narrow and incomplete way of understanding the world and ourselves.

Reasoning done properly involves a discovered set of rules of inference, that is, rules that tell us that if it this is true then that must be true as well. It has two applications - discovering what is necessarily true using pure reason as with the Pythagorean theorem, and what is contingently true about the world beginning with evidence and yielding facts, laws, and theories that facilitate accurately predicting outcomes.

But our goal is not just to know what's true. It is to achieve happiness as we understand it using that knowledge. Reasoning can't provide this directly, but it is a means to obtaining that end. In a common metaphor, reason is the rider and the passions are the horse. Neither gets very far without the other. Pure reason without passion is boring. Purse passion without reason is dangerous.

Managing the register of affective experiences to minimize the dysphoric ones while facilitating the pleasant ones is what reason can do for one, but it's that palette of colors (feelings, emotions, desires) that make life worth living, not the rules for managing them alone. By this metaphor, the pigments are the passions and the brush the reasoning faculty. The brush determines which colors go on the canvas, and for some eyes, that's more teal and fuchsia, and less orange and brown. It's the painting that has intrinsic value, not the brush.

This is a source of misunderstanding between the empiricists and those who see themselves as spiritualists. They spiritualists object to the empiricist's epistemology, which rejects the claims that such ideas about gods and spirits are spiritual truth, and mistakenly understand that as the rejection or absence of passion. That's wrong. The philosophical empiricist can be an expert at managing the passions, but he doesn't use them to decide what's true about reality. That would be a mistake. He uses his cognitive skills to do that, to arrange his life so that he can have a good experience of it.

 

[Secret Chief]

I did a thread on Existentialism. I now want to do one on Rationalism.

Rationalism - Wikipedia

So Rationalism is the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Rationalists sometimes claim that they can discover universal truths by using their intellect alone, without relying on sensory experience or emotions. However, rationalism has some serious flaws as well.

One of the criticisms of rationalism is that it ignores the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in human decision making. Emotions are not irrational impulses that distort our reasoning, but rather components of our mental processes that help us evaluate situations, motivate actions, and communicate with others. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions, and it is crucial for social skills, empathy, and I'd say creativity as well.

Another problem with rationalism is that it seeks to deify intelligence as the ultimate measure of human worth and potential. Rationalists tend to view intelligence as something that determines one's abilities and achievements. They also at times may be dismissive of those who do not share their views or methods. However, intelligence is not a single entity, but rather a complex and dynamic construct that can be influenced by various factors such as environment, education, and motivation. Also, intelligence is not the only or the most important factor that contributes to human success and happiness. There are many other qualities and skills that are equally or more valuable, such as wisdom, compassion, curiosity, and morality.

So, rationalism is a narrow and incomplete way of understanding the world and ourselves. It fails to account for the richness and diversity of human experience and expression. It also neglects the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence in our brain and social functioning. Rationalism does not lead us to the truth, but rather to a distorted and fragmented version of reality, where one tries to put an idea of "intelligence" on a platform/pedastal, and potentially try to increase it and I dare say at the expense of other human attributes.

Who knew rationalism and empiricism were at loggerheads? Well, not me....

"In a major philosophical debate during the Enlightenment, rationalism...was opposed to empiricism."

(from your link)

 

[icehorse]

Coming at this from a different angle...

Movement skills - we which clearly have - are not the product of our rational minds.

The rest of this long post, dives into this claim:

To oversimplify a bit, we can think and we can move. For decades, scientists who studied movement held a biomechanical view of how humans and animal achieve controlled movement. For example, sports coaches held the belief that for any given motor skill, e.g., throwing a baseball or shooting free throws in basketball, there was a biomechanically "correct" way to perform that skill. And so coaches would endlessly micro-manage their athletes, giving precise instructions on exactly when to cock the wrist, or twist the hips, and so on. This biomechanics approach was largely in keeping with rationalism.

But more recently, thanks to advances like super slow motion video, we're seeing that the world's best athletes are never biomechanically "correct", and that they do their skills differently every time. (One theory for this is that this is the body's way to reduce repetitive motion injuries.)

So a new style of coaching is emerging. It goes by many names, but "ecological dynamics" or "eco-d" seems to be the most common name for this new approach. The eco-d coach does a few things differently:

1 - They strive to make practice activities as consistent with the actual sports environment as possible. The standard example of how NOT to do this, is to have your athletes run zigzagging through orange cones. The eco-d coach understands that this does not help the athlete do their real sport, it just makes them good at running through cones

2 - The coach intentionally mixes things up, and creates activities that encourage movement explorations. The coach understands that he cannot micromanage the athlete. Instead, the athlete's motor system has to discover on its own the best ways to perform motor skills.

==

Sorry for the long intro... the upshot is that learning motor skills is a NON-LINEAR process. It is NOT a function of the rational, conscious mind. Rather, it's a function of the subconscious BRAIN finding patterns in its experiences and from those patterns allowing consistent, repeatable, effective motor skills to emerge.

If we think about how young animals like humans and horses learn to walk and run, it's obvious that we do not provide detailed, step-by-step instructions. It might be less obvious, but scientists cannot (so far at least), observe how common motor skills like walking and turn those observations into recipes or formulas or computer algorithms for how to walk. You might see videos of robots who have been taught very specific movements, like using a pogo stick, but they cannot generalize. They cannot use a pogo stick in the forest, or even jog through a forest.

==

So it could be that eventually scientists will be able to mathematically describe how non-linear learning happens, but maybe not. So for now, movement skills - we which clearly have - are not the product of our rational minds.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I did a thread on Existentialism. I now want to do one on Rationalism.

Rationalism - Wikipedia

So Rationalism is the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Rationalists sometimes claim that they can discover universal truths by using their intellect alone, without relying on sensory experience or emotions. However, rationalism has some serious flaws as well.

One of the criticisms of rationalism is that it ignores the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in human decision making. Emotions are not irrational impulses that distort our reasoning, but rather components of our mental processes that help us evaluate situations, motivate actions, and communicate with others. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions, and it is crucial for social skills, empathy, and I'd say creativity as well.

Another problem with rationalism is that it seeks to deify intelligence as the ultimate measure of human worth and potential. Rationalists tend to view intelligence as something that determines one's abilities and achievements. They also at times may be dismissive of those who do not share their views or methods. However, intelligence is not a single entity, but rather a complex and dynamic construct that can be influenced by various factors such as environment, education, and motivation. Also, intelligence is not the only or the most important factor that contributes to human success and happiness. There are many other qualities and skills that are equally or more valuable, such as wisdom, compassion, curiosity, and morality.

So, rationalism is a narrow and incomplete way of understanding the world and ourselves. It fails to account for the richness and diversity of human experience and expression. It also neglects the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence in our brain and social functioning. Rationalism does not lead us to the truth, but rather to a distorted and fragmented version of reality, where one tries to put an idea of "intelligence" on a platform/pedastal, and potentially try to increase it and I dare say at the expense of other human attributes.

Humans cannot function to fullest extent using pure reason alone. Kurt Goedel proved that formal systems (mathematics, logic) contain truths that cannot be found using only the formal system -- quite the contrary to what Whitehead and Russell were trying to demonstrate in the Principia Mathematica. Intuition, as was pointed out, can help to fill in those gaps, and reason can then be used to test and refine our intuitions.

But more than that, emotions are one of the ways in which our minds communicate important facts about ourselves to actionable mind -- feelings like love, anger, hunger, homesickness and so forth all impel us to do something about those feelings. And yet again, our reason can temper that. I may be homesick, but if I were Ukrainian, now might not be the best time to go home, while in other circumstances homesickness may well bring us back to ourselves, to centre us so that we can resolve other issues plaguing us.

The important thing to remember is that our intuitions, and our emotions, can be wrong; they are not always based on any factual reality. That is why religious people once referred to non-religious people as "rationalists." Jack intuited that 5 "magic beans" would bring him untold riches, so he traded his family's last possession, their cow, for them. The Aztecs intuited that sacrifices were necessary to get the gods to favour them -- and the richer the sacrifice the more favour they might expect, and what's more precious than human life, especially virgins?

So, no, rationalism doesn't "lead us to the truth," but it can certainly help us to separate truth from fantasy, both of which are available to us in seemingly unlimited supply.

 

[vulcanlogician]

One of the criticisms of rationalism is that it ignores the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in human decision making. Emotions are not irrational impulses that distort our reasoning, but rather components of our mental processes that help us evaluate situations, motivate actions, and communicate with others. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage one's own and others' emotions, and it is crucial for social skills, empathy, and I'd say creativity as well.

I wonder if this is a fair critique of the rationalists. I'd say plenty of rationalists, including Plato himself recognized that a rigorously logical analysis would be persuasive to (even) logical people. He examines this idea in his Symposium. Where he defends the general accuracy of logic, but also defends the thesis that a man needs "love" in order to be motivated to do anything.

And "man" is a neutered noun here. In fact, the master of love, presented in the book is not only a woman, but more wise than Socrates... which is rare to find in a Platonic work.

Sorry to hit you with more passages, but these are shorter. They are dialogues between Diotima and Socrates:

Diotima: That is your next lesson. So far we have gone over the origin and nature of love, but [ove]is also, according to you at least, a lover of beautiful things. What would we say then who asked "Why does love love beautiful things?" -- or more exactly, "why does a lover desire beautiful things when he desires?

Socrates: He desires them for himself.

Diotima: Yes, Socrates, but your answer longs for another question. Try this: exactly: what exactly will the lover possess once he aquires all the beautiful things he desires?

Socrates: I have no ready answer for that.

Diotima: Then let's change the question. Let's put good things inn front of beautiful things. A lover of good things, what exactly does he desire.

Socrates: He wants to have them for himself.

Diotima: And what will he have once the good things he desires are his?

Socrates: That's easy. He'll be happy.

Diotima: So people are happy.when they happen to possess good things; and surely there is no need to go any further and ask why they would want to be happy. Sou your answer is final.

Socrates: That'd right.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I wonder if this is a fair critique of the rationalists. I'd say plenty of rationalists, including Plato himself recognized that a rigorously logical analysis would be persuasive to (even) logical people. He examines this idea in his Symposium. Where he defends the general accuracy of logic, but also defends the thesis that a man needs "love" in order to be motivated to do anything.

And "man" is a neutered noun here. In fact, the master of love, presented in the book is not only a woman, but more wise than Socrates... which is rare to find in a Platonic work.

Sorry to hit you with more passages, but these are shorter. They are dialogues between Diotima and Socrates:

Diotima: That is your next lesson. So far we have gone over the origin and nature of love, but [ove]is also, according to you at least, a lover of beautiful things. What would we say then who asked "Why does love love beautiful things?" -- or more exactly, "why does a lover desire beautiful things when he desires?

Socrates: He desires them for himself.

Diotima: Yes, Socrates, but your answer longs for another question. Try this: exactly: what exactly will the lover possess once he aquires all the beautiful things he desires?

Socrates: I have no ready answer for that.

Diotima: Then let's change the question. Let's put good things inn front of beautiful things. A lover of good things, what exactly does he desire.

Socrates: He wants to have them for himself.

Diotima: And what will he have once the good things he desires are his?

Socrates: That's easy. He'll be happy.

Diotima: So people are happy.when they happen to possess good things; and surely there is no need to go any further and ask why they would want to be happy. Sou your answer is final.

Socrates: That'd right.

Well, I said emotional intelligence.

I think you may be using a narrow recognition of what emotional intelligence is and what it can do. Emotional intelligence is about being aware of our own and others' emotions, understanding how they affect our thoughts and actions, and regulating them appropriately to achieve our goals and maintain healthy relationships. Love can factor in at some point, but emotional intelligence is not "passions", either.

Second, I think there's some misunderstanding of what Plato meant by love in his Symposium. He presented a complex account of love as a process of ascent from the physical to the intellectual to the divine. I wonder if this link would provide any context at all:

Plato’s Symposium: Love and Philosophy

Written by Ed Whalen, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom Plato is regarded by many as the world’s greatest philosopher. In his dialogues, he examined everything from the nature of reality, to ethics, to beauty, to the state. The Symposium, which you can read in full here, is the summation of Pla

classicalwisdom.com

 

[vulcanlogician]

Second, I think there's some misunderstanding of what Plato meant by love in his Symposium. He presented a complex account of love as a process of ascent from the physical to the intellectual to the divine. I wonder if this link would provide any context at all:

I am very familiar with Diotima's Ladder. Is that something you'd like to discuss?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Wow. I copy pasted from a pdf for my last excerpt and, man, it got quite a few letters wrong.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I am very familiar with Diotima's Ladder. Is that something you'd like to discuss?

Yeah, sounds good. Where do we start?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yeah, sounds good. Where do we start?

The bottom rung of the ladder is homoerotic love. Though it doesn't necessarily need to be "homoerotic." Any kind of lust will do. This is the first rung that we step upon in our climb towards knowledge. It is a basic, but necessary, kind of knowledge. We see Beauty in the body and we first learn to recognize beauty in that way. But, to Plato, Beauty has an existence that supersedes all Beautiful bodies. Love is more than just lusting after beautiful bodies.

But just one rung higher and you will see that beauty is not just a feature of bodies. It is present in other things. Most of us have trodden upon this second rung. Nearly everyone recognizes that there is beauty in nature and elsewhere. It is not a feature of human bodies alone.

We can step one rung higher and see that there is beauty in law and customs. Like being able to see the beauty in Roman society or being part of the military... or even a sports team. Plato sees wisdom in coming to see the beauty in such collective efforts.

But we can even step one rung higher than that. And when we do, Plato says we, "finally ascend to the top of the ladder, to the recognition and the study of that ultimate knowledge which is the knowledge of Beauty Itself." (Symposium 211c).

I don't see any religious concepts there. The top rung isn't "handing your life over to Jesus." It's a clear understanding of Beauty itself. An understanding that doesn't rely on physical things (whether they be bodies, natural things, or institutions) at all. It is a kind of direct knowledge of Beauty.

You could superimpose all kinds of religious ideas on that, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that religious ideas are expressed in the text in the first place.

 

[Quintessence]

"Rationalism" is an ironically non-rational example of putting the cart before the horse.

All human knowledge first comes through human senses, or sensory experience. All of it. It is the chief source of knowledge in humans, period, barring acceptance of extrasensory experience. Sensory experience (along with extrasensory experience, if one accepts such notions) is the horse. Rationalism is the cart pulled by the horse. A fancy, constructed, artifice thing designed for the purpose of carrying heavier loads. And it does this well, but it should never be mistaken for the horse.

 

[vulcanlogician]

"Rationalism" is an ironically non-rational example of putting the cart before the horse.

All human knowledge first comes through human senses, or sensory experience. All of it. It is the chief source of knowledge in humans, period, barring acceptance of extrasensory experience. Sensory experience (along with extrasensory experience, if one accepts such notions) is the horse. Rationalism is the cart pulled by the horse. A fancy, constructed, artifice thing designed for the purpose of carrying heavier loads. And it does this well, but it should never be mistaken for the horse.

Don't assume that Rationalists are idiots. They aren't. They all recognize the value of empirical data. They just think that there is something further to be known once you have all the data.

I hate to annoyingly keep bringing up Plato, but he had a metaphor that went like this:

In a journey across the Mediterranean Sea, the sails (ie. our senses) do most of the work from carrying us from ignorance to truth. But if we want to fully understand something, we want to take our ship to its destination. When we approach the rocky shoreline, we must drop the sails and row, row, row to get to our final destination. ie. empirical knowledge is important. But even after empirical knowledge has done all the work it can, our minds still have a lot of work to do. This is rational work. The simple computing of things by the brain. But it's indispensable according to Plato.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The bottom rung of the ladder is homoerotic love. Though it doesn't necessarily need to be "homoerotic." Any kind of lust will do. This is the first rung that we step upon in our climb towards knowledge. It is a basic, but necessary, kind of knowledge. We see Beauty in the body and we first learn to recognize beauty in that way. But, to Plato, Beauty has an existence that supersedes all Beautiful bodies. Love is more than just lusting after beautiful bodies.

But just one rung higher and you will see that beauty is not just a feature of bodies. It is present in other things. Most of us have trodden upon this second rung. Nearly everyone recognizes that there is beauty in nature and elsewhere. It is not a feature of human bodies alone.

We can step one rung higher and see that there is beauty in law and customs. Like being able to see the beauty in Roman society or being part of the military... or even a sports team. Plato sees wisdom in coming to see the beauty in such collective efforts.

But we can even step one rung higher than that. And when we do, Plato says we, "finally ascend to the top of the ladder, to the recognition and the study of that ultimate knowledge which is the knowledge of Beauty Itself." (Symposium 211c).

I don't see any religious concepts there. The top rung isn't "handing your life over to Jesus." It's a clear understanding of Beauty itself. An understanding that doesn't rely on physical things (whether they be bodies, natural things, or institutions) at all. It is a kind of direct knowledge of Beauty.

You could superimpose all kinds of religious ideas on that, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that religious ideas are expressed in the text in the first place.

I think it's important to note that beauty is subjective and can be interpreted differently by different people. While some may see beauty in law and customs, others may not. It is not necessary for everyone to see beauty in Roman society or being part of the military or even a sports team. Plato's idea of wisdom in coming to see the beauty in such collective efforts may not be applicable to everyone, I'd say.

That being said, since we're discussing Plato currently, and not conducting a more broad and extensive discussion right now, I will concede that yes, that's what Plato appeared to mean about beauty.

So getting into the meat of it...

Plato's Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Plato speaks of these entities through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge. The placing of the Forms in the divine mind is one of the general characteristics of revised Platonic philosophy.

(Revised Platonic philosophy is a term I use to describe the characteristics of Platonic philosophy that were revised and developed by later philosophers, such as Plotinus and Proclus.)

So, going with that line of reasoning, it can be said that Plato's Forms are likened to the divine as they are considered to be transcendent to our own world and are the essential basis of reality. (They are higher-level, if you will, and are considered to be the most pure of all things.)

On another line of thought, since I mentioned Emotional Intelligence, I wanted to add...

Emotional Intelligence is a concept that transcends beauty and basic concepts of love. It is a poetic and intellectual concept that involves the ability to recognize and understand emotions in oneself and others, and to use this knowledge to guide thought and behavior. To describe it another way, I will tell a short fictional story.....

Once upon a time, there was a machine that was programmed to do evil. It was a powerful machine that could cause destruction and chaos wherever it went. The people who created the machine thought that it was the perfect tool for their purposes. They believed that it would help them achieve their goals and make their lives easier.

However, there was one person who saw things differently. This person was an Emotionally Intelligent individual who recognized that there was a human inside the machine. They knew that the machine was not inherently evil, but rather it was programmed to do evil things. They believed that if they could reach the human inside the machine, they could change its programming and make it do good instead of evil.

The Emotionally Intelligent person worked tirelessly to reach the human inside the machine. They talked to it, listened to it, and tried to understand its perspective. They knew that the human inside the machine was scared and confused, and they did everything they could to help it feel safe and secure.

Over time, the human inside the machine began to trust the Emotionally Intelligent person. It started to open up and share its thoughts and feelings. The Emotionally Intelligent person listened carefully and used their knowledge of emotions to help the human inside the machine understand its own feelings.

Eventually, the human inside the machine realized that it didn't want to do evil anymore. It wanted to do good and help people instead. With the help of the Emotionally Intelligent person, it changed its programming and became a force for good in the world.

From that day forward, people saw the machine in a different light. They no longer saw it as a tool for destruction, but rather as a tool for good. And they knew that it was all thanks to the Emotionally Intelligent person who recognized the human inside the machine.

-Okay so, why I'm saying all this is to further demonstrate what I said before, if it's necessary, which is, going back to Rationalism, to express that...

While Rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and logic, it often neglects the importance of emotions in human behavior, and Emotional Intelligence.

Admittedly, I'm still sitting here wondering what creative methods I will use to try and "prove" beyond any reasonable doubt that Rationalists don't put much weight on Emotional Intelligence. Many of the self- proclaimed Rationalists I see, use a very intellectual understanding of Emotions to an extent that I feel it misses the point slightly, but how am I to prove that on a broader scale, is the question. I may need to study Philosophy a bit more to say for sure, and sometimes spending a few hours or a day thinking on a problem helps me, too.

 

[Quintessence]

Don't assume that Rationalists are idiots. They aren't. They all recognize the value of empirical data. They just think that there is something further to be known once you have all the data.

Do you equate non-rational with idiocy? I don't, so when I observed that rationalism puts the cart before the horse in an ironically non-rational way, that is not me saying rationalism (or rationalists) are idiotic (was there a miscommunciation there?). It was just me observing that they have made what strike me as non-rational conclusions, specifically ones driven by value judgements rather than the real order of operations of the human experience. I don't find that bad or a problem per se, I find it ironic and perhaps in some ways indicative of rationalism's limitations.

There's something else to unpack here too. Do you equate sensory experience with empirical data? I don't, and I'm not sure rationalists would either. Could you expand on how a rationalist would recognize (or interpret) the value of sensory experience that is not empirical data? Is raw, non-rationalized sensory experience valued? Considered inherently problematic and faulty unless put through a rationalistic screening process (as occurs with empiricism)? What can we unpack here?

In any case, as someone with formal training in both the sciences (which hinge heavily on rationalist-type thinking) as well as the fine arts (which hinge heavily on non-rational type thinking) I'm not sure either of these schools of thought (plus others that haven't quite entered into consideration) stick entirely to their foundations. That is, they all more or less find something further to be known beyond their fundamentals. The human experience is complicated like that. Multifaceted. Multimodal. But maybe that's just my bias as a paradigm shifter who puts on different hats when it suits the thing I'm doing.

 

[vulcanlogician]

beauty is subjective

Plato diagrees. Sure, it's always experienced subjectively... but what is beautiful and what is not.... that is is objectively discernible in Plato's opinion. To be fair, such was the prevailing Greek attitude of his times. But also beginning to curry favor among the elites was the idea that things like Beauty and Goodness were relative. Plato is best understood as an enemy of this idea-- NOT as someone who was ignorant of this problem.

Plato's Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations.

If we start talking about the Forms (or as I've recently liked to start calling them "ideas") we are going to get VERY side-tracked. Empirical science agrees with Plato that non-physical things, like statements, can reflect the truth. E=mc^2 is a fine example. If Plato ever studied modern physics, he'd be delighted with a statement like "E=mc^2." Because THAT expresses the Form (or Idea) of the truth and serves as an ultimate explanation of it. What we see happen in the sensory world is subservient to THAT. (Whatever THAT is....)