question: is man a rational animal?

[Peter Kropotkin]

the answer given by both communism and the enlightenment,
is yes... man/human beings are rational beings...

but let us think about both communism and the enlightenment
in historical context...would Marx still hold to the idea that
man/human beings are rational beings if, if he had known
Freud? Freud "discovered" man/human beings are not rational beings,
but beings driven by irrational drives within the unconscious..
and the Enlightenment has the exact same problem..

to account for, to properly understand what man/human beings are,
we have to, have to account for these unconscious drives, these
irrational drives... and therein lies the problem of philosophy...
we have to account for rational as well as the unconscious/irrational
within all human beings...the only philosophy that has even tried is
existentialism...to account for man/human beings in terms of
their unconscious/irrational beliefs...

Of course, this is why philosophy has failed... it has assumed
incorrectly, that man/human beings are, at all times, in all
situations, rational.. much of what human beings do, spend their
lives looking for is not rational or even logical...

At work, we recently got a new manager.. Matt.. and the other day, I was
talking to Matt and he made this statement..

''I work to make money, money is what drives me, ''AS IT DRIVES ALL PEOPLE"...

This statement is categorically wrong...we human beings are driven by
as many diverse and different drives as there are human beings...
many people, of course not all, but many people are driven by
(and this list is not exhaustive by any means)

Love, hope, safety/security, esteem, knowledge, material goods,
justice, drama, desire, wants, needs, both bodily, spiritually
and psychological needs... we have as many drives,
and most people have more than just one need/drive.....

We cannot philosophically account for people until we
also are able to account for their drives/desires/needs..
which are not rational or even logical...
philosophy will remain incomplete until it is able to account for
for our irrational nature...our unconscious nature.....

thus I have stated, many times before, that until philosophy
becomes psychology and history and economics and biology and
sociology and evolution, to name just a few disciplines, philosophy
will remain incomplete.. as all the other disciplines will remain incomplete
until they reunite/join with all the other disciplines..

so, the question, is man/human beings a rational animal,
so misses the mark as to be a worthless question...

the real question is this... what does it take or mean
to become a human being?....
not just an animal, or animal/human,
but a fully complete human being?

the question isn't about our rationality, but how do we become
human?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

if, if man/human beings are rational, then how does one
explain the modern crisis of drugs, alcohol, the pursuit
of temporary and provisional things... like the modern
pursuit of money, fame, titles, material goods, power?

For me, there is no difference between the demons
that create the addiction crisis of America and the
pursuit of the ephemeral/ baubles of existence...
they are different sides of the same thing...
we take drugs to forget or to hide from the irrational/
dark side of being human.. the irrational/unconscious side
of being human...

If we human beings are so rational, then why the need for drugs to
hide from our irrational side of existence?

our solution to the next step of becoming human is to accept
the dark, evolutionary, irrational side of being human....
not to drown it or deny it or repress it with booze or drugs or
the mindless pursuit of wealth or power or fame, no, the solution
to becoming human comes in accepting and in fact, becoming what
we are.. animals trying to become human... we are angry beings,
sad beings, mean beings, we hate and lust and hold greed
and desire what is not ours.... and all of the things that the
bible warns us about, we are.. the 10 commandments are
a not so exhaustive list of what it means to be human....
and the solution is not to deny or forget or trying to drown them
but to incorporate them into ourselves, man/human being is not
a rational being, but a irrational one.. and we must comes to
terms with our very nature.. which isn't logical or rational, beliefs
that were common before Freud, but we must come to accept
and acknowledge the inner demons of our irrational nature...

we lust and we pursue values and beliefs that are damaging to
us personally but damaging to us as a society/state/culture...
conservatives hold that to save/correct/become better people,
we must accept god.. they are flat out wrong... we must accept
who we are as human beings, both the rational and the irrational part
of being human..... we must become human and that means
accepting what it means to be human... not just the logical,
rational part but the ugly/horrid/awful/unseemly aspect of being
human...the irrational part.... who we are, both consciously
and subconsciously....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

having read Plato, I see now that Plato was a "rationalist"
man is a rational being in Plato and Aristotle....
but we know better in our "modern" age...
the age after Freud...

Plato specifically banned artists in his republic and why?
for Artists come closer, much closer to the irrational in us,
in human beings... there has been a struggle in history between
the Artist and the philosopher... the Artist fought for and wrote
about the irrational in us and the philosopher fought for and
wrote about the rational in us...the new paradigm suggest
that we must be both Artist and, and philosophers...
and now we can see the importance of Nietzsche and of Kierkegaard...

Both of them wrote as both Artist and philosopher.. in fact,
uniting something that had been rent asunder centuries ago...
thus we can see how Sartre fits into this... he wrote plays and novels
as well as philosophical works... attempting to unite both
Artist/seeker of the irrational and the philosopher/seeker of
philosophical/rational....

many have attempted to cross that chasm between philosophy/rational
and ART/irrational... Voltaire for example... but Voltaire was more
Artist than philosopher... and Sartre was more philosopher than
Artist... what was Nietzsche? or Kierkegaard? Nietzsche and
K. were closer to Artist than philosophers... I am not an Artist,
I know this but I am a philosopher.. and so I stick with what I am good at....
so, what are you good at? philosopher or artist?
most of this site is actually neither, just dilettantes pretending to
practice philosophy....but Kropotkin, why do you say that?
because who here actually engages with philosophy as a
''way of life" instead of something to use to score points in
a dick waving contest trying to prove who is smarter....
if you use philosophy to score points, you aren't a philosopher...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

ok, let us approach this problem of rationalism
vs Irrationalism in another way...

the question of evil... please feel free to define ''evil''
what is "evil?"

the question of evil arises especially in terms of the
''Holocaust".. in fact, one might say that it was the
''Holocaust" that ended the idea/ belief in the enlightenment...
so how does one explain man/human beings being rational given
Auschwitz or Treblinka?

Given the very real problem of connecting the idea of "rational"
man/human beings with the problem of Auschwitz, we have done
the practical thing and have promptly forgot them..
the young kids aren't taught about the Holocaust or this
question of "evil".. how do we explain the "Holocaust"
in terms of who human beings are? Are we in fact, rational
beings who temporarily become "evil" or are we in fact,
irrational beings who occasionally become rational?

What does it mean to be human in light of ''Auschwitz?''

Most people around here will simply walk past the question as
being too uncomfortable to answer....no different than they walk
past a man who was beaten and left on the side of the road...
It is a picture that is too hard to look at or as most people walk
past the many homeless people living on the streets... who wants
to think about all those homeless people? that is an "ugly" picture
or a picture that will depress one.. and who wants to be
depressed? it is rather inconvenient to our lives to be depressed?

but we will become sad and depressed if we don't get the latest
thing, that album that is all the rage or that car that all your friends
have... that is certainly worth becoming sad and depressed about,
not homeless people or the Holocaust......

what we have lost is not being rational or even irrational, but
we have lost our perspective in what is important and what isn't..
you might say, the Holocaust was 80 years ago, but in fact, the
Holocaust was 15 years from my own birth...Ann Frank died in 1945,
less time than 9/11 is from now... as I was born in 1959...

so, I ask you to be something no else has ever ask you before,
be brave and examine whether the Holocaust was actually evil or
was it good? and why? and what does the Holocaust mean
for us in helping us understanding what it means to be human?
are we rational or irrational beings?


Kropotkin

[henry quirk]

No. He can be, ought to be, from time to time, a reasonable one.
obviously, I use reasonable in a way not synonymous with rational

[Peter Kropotkin]

No. He can be, ought to be, from time to time, a reasonable one.
obviously, I use reasonable in a way not synonymous with rational

K: and what does it mean to be a ''reasonable one"
a reasonable person?

Kropotkin

[henry quirk]

No. He can be, ought to be, from time to time, a reasonable one.
obviously, I use reasonable in a way not synonymous with rational

K: and what does it mean to be a ''reasonable one"
a reasonable person?

Kropotkin

You, as a presumably, occaisonally, reasonable man can reason. You can assess, intend, defer, conclude, discern, weigh, deliberate, etc. You can invoke your conscience. You aren't a mechanism.

[Peter Kropotkin]

No. He can be, ought to be, from time to time, a reasonable one.
obviously, I use reasonable in a way not synonymous with rational

K: and what does it mean to be a ''reasonable one"
a reasonable person?

Kropotkin

You, as a presumably, occaisonally, reasonable man can reason. You can assess, intend, defer, conclude, discern, weigh, deliberate, etc. You can invoke your conscience. You aren't a mechanism.

K: I would suggest that we humans, in fact, use irrational thought
far more than rational thought.. our subconscious mind dominates us
in a way that our conscious mind does not... we seek and rationalize
things from an irrational framework more than a rational framework...
again, let us use the common beliefs of the American system...
America promotes greed, lust, violence, hatred, anger..
doubt me.. I point to the MAGA/GOP party as evidence...
capitalism is an entire system devoted to greed and lust....
"the fable of the bee's" and the "wealth of Nations" are just two
books that try to enshrine greed as a value, a virtue
or please free to explain how the driving force of the "wealth of
Nations" is the "invisible hand of god" and just exactly how rational
is that? how is using private vice as a means to public virtue,
a "rational" understanding......or have you forgotten Gordon Gekko?

the second point is a man who is only occasional "reasonable"
is completely useless... either strive for ''being reasonable"
all the time or pretend no more and answer the call of the
subconscious mind all the time.... to be honest, a man who
can only be reasonable occasionally has no value..
because they can simply pick and choose when it is
convenient to be reasonable.. like someone trying to be honest
only occasionally.. can you really trust them to be honest?
I can't..... if you can't be honest all the time, you have no
value to me.... you are in fact, worthless....

Kropotkin

[dattaswami]

the answer given by both communism and the enlightenment,
is yes... man/human beings are rational beings...

but let us think about both communism and the enlightenment
in historical context...would Marx still hold to the idea that
man/human beings are rational beings if, if he had known
Freud? Freud "discovered" man/human beings are not rational beings,
but beings driven by irrational drives within the unconscious..
and the Enlightenment has the exact same problem..

to account for, to properly understand what man/human beings are,
we have to, have to account for these unconscious drives, these
irrational drives... and therein lies the problem of philosophy...
we have to account for rational as well as the unconscious/irrational
within all human beings...the only philosophy that has even tried is
existentialism...to account for man/human beings in terms of
their unconscious/irrational beliefs...

Of course, this is why philosophy has failed... it has assumed
incorrectly, that man/human beings are, at all times, in all
situations, rational.. much of what human beings do, spend their
lives looking for is not rational or even logical...

At work, we recently got a new manager.. Matt.. and the other day, I was
talking to Matt and he made this statement..

''I work to make money, money is what drives me, ''AS IT DRIVES ALL PEOPLE"...

This statement is categorically wrong...we human beings are driven by
as many diverse and different drives as there are human beings...
many people, of course not all, but many people are driven by
(and this list is not exhaustive by any means)

Love, hope, safety/security, esteem, knowledge, material goods,
justice, drama, desire, wants, needs, both bodily, spiritually
and psychological needs... we have as many drives,
and most people have more than just one need/drive.....

We cannot philosophically account for people until we
also are able to account for their drives/desires/needs..
which are not rational or even logical...
philosophy will remain incomplete until it is able to account for
for our irrational nature...our unconscious nature.....

thus I have stated, many times before, that until philosophy
becomes psychology and history and economics and biology and
sociology and evolution, to name just a few disciplines, philosophy
will remain incomplete.. as all the other disciplines will remain incomplete
until they reunite/join with all the other disciplines..

so, the question, is man/human beings a rational animal,
so misses the mark as to be a worthless question...

the real question is this... what does it take or mean
to become a human being?....
not just an animal, or animal/human,
but a fully complete human being?

the question isn't about our rationality, but how do we become
human?

Kropotkin

Human beings has a purpose in this world. However we see human beings living like animals, always eating, sleeping, having sex etc. They are limited to these activities alone. Somebody told that man is an animal with two legs. Science says that man is evolved from animal. The main difference between animal and human being is that animal doesn’t discriminate good from bad. The common points between animal and man are food with drink, sleep, fear and sex (Aahaara Nidraa bhaya maidhunaani). If the human being is limited to these four items only throughout the life, the human being is called as animal with two legs instead of four legs.

Such human being is thrown into the lifecycles of animals and birds forever because these only four items are available in animals so that the human soul in the body of animal can fully concentrate on these four items only throughout the life. The liking of the soul is fulfilled by the divine father and this should not be treated as anger of God.

The main aim of human life starts with the recognition of God and in fixing the main aim of human life as attainment of the grace of God before this rarest human life ends. The analysis of human faculties and human behavior etc., involves various concepts of mere living of a person in this world. When the spectrum is limited to the worldly life only without touching the divine life, what is the use since the main aim is not touched at all? A student admitted in the college for studies is also admitted in the hostel.

The academic life in the college is far better than the hostel life since attaining the degree is the main aim. Of course, absence of all hostel problems gives peace that helps the academic studies. If this peace is not used for the main academic studies and is used to have good health, which is useful in enjoying the luxuries, such peace is useless and solutions for hostel problems are also insignificant. The direction of the worldly life is important in deciding good or bad.

[ThinkOfOne]

the answer given by both communism and the enlightenment,
is yes... man/human beings are rational beings...

but let us think about both communism and the enlightenment
in historical context...would Marx still hold to the idea that
man/human beings are rational beings if, if he had known
Freud? Freud "discovered" man/human beings are not rational beings,
but beings driven by irrational drives within the unconscious..
and the Enlightenment has the exact same problem..

to account for, to properly understand what man/human beings are,
we have to, have to account for these unconscious drives, these
irrational drives... and therein lies the problem of philosophy...
we have to account for rational as well as the unconscious/irrational
within all human beings...the only philosophy that has even tried is
existentialism...to account for man/human beings in terms of
their unconscious/irrational beliefs...

Of course, this is why philosophy has failed... it has assumed
incorrectly, that man/human beings are, at all times, in all
situations, rational.. much of what human beings do, spend their
lives looking for is not rational or even logical...

At work, we recently got a new manager.. Matt.. and the other day, I was
talking to Matt and he made this statement..

''I work to make money, money is what drives me, ''AS IT DRIVES ALL PEOPLE"...

This statement is categorically wrong...we human beings are driven by
as many diverse and different drives as there are human beings...
many people, of course not all, but many people are driven by
(and this list is not exhaustive by any means)

Love, hope, safety/security, esteem, knowledge, material goods,
justice, drama, desire, wants, needs, both bodily, spiritually
and psychological needs... we have as many drives,
and most people have more than just one need/drive.....

We cannot philosophically account for people until we
also are able to account for their drives/desires/needs..
which are not rational or even logical...
philosophy will remain incomplete until it is able to account for
for our irrational nature...our unconscious nature.....

thus I have stated, many times before, that until philosophy
becomes psychology and history and economics and biology and
sociology and evolution, to name just a few disciplines, philosophy
will remain incomplete.. as all the other disciplines will remain incomplete
until they reunite/join with all the other disciplines..

so, the question, is man/human beings a rational animal,
so misses the mark as to be a worthless question...

the real question is this... what does it take or mean
to become a human being?....
not just an animal, or animal/human,
but a fully complete human being?

the question isn't about our rationality, but how do we become
human?

Kropotkin

The deeper questions are:
What are the underlying reasons for irrationality in human beings?
Are human beings capable of overcoming those underlying reasons?
What does it take to overcome those underlying reasons?
Why isn't it being done by the vast majority of human beings?


Instead of exploring those deeper questions, you seem to take it as a given that human beings are not capable of making themselves rational without having explored the deeper questions. Why is this? Is such a position rational?