What.

Any system built on the presumption of widespread capacity for reason is bound to fail. The ability for most humans to ‘reason’ is clearly abridged …

What Reason?

—– While I agree with the sentiment from which this post moves, I disagree with a couple things.

I like the comment about reason. Yes.

I like the comment about how democracy requires further insight, or however actually they put it.

However, I have some reservations about the statement that this is why democracy is doomed to fail.

It would be doomed to fail if indeed there was a common category called humanity that behaves in whatever sort of way. But I take the more extreme version of these kind of “non-reductive” concepts which see dissolution in extrapolation, to see that the dissolution itself has no basis in a common category either. 

In posts long past, I have suggested that I am actually an optimist because I see the failure of these categories that uphold further categories that are assumed beyond discursive foundations. Many people associate this kind of epistemology is pessimistic, but I see in that pessimism a kind of basic misunderstanding of what is occurring. Hence, my optimism.

Without going on for too long; the basic operations I see is more in line with Asimov’s “Foundation” series. This is to say that it doesn’t matter what the inconsistencies of a common human might be, because the very idea of a common human sort is based in irrationality, Or, a kind of reason which does not admit its faults, which is in capable of admitting in a general sense what is at fault in the common category, and this includes the common category of “reason”. And this is to say that definition is insufficient.

Nonetheless, if we can understand what is actually occurring here, then it is possible to see that it is indeed the system which functions on faith, and not one that functions on Reasonable or unreasonable ideology. It is the fear that comes with activity based in what is understood as irrational which ironically comprises the consolidation of the system’s truth in affect.

And this is to say that an analysis of history regularly avoids the actual history that it analyzing for the sake of the history that it is producing in the rational system itself. As indeed the arguments might go about whether there is a dead or living documentation. Such arguments do not influence the way that systems operate ; they only influence the way the system is behaving internally.



And the fact that there is no way to prove this actually proves it: The system of rationality is it self irrational because it is by virtue of what is irrational that what is rational is able to be known, and it is by the functioning of the system that indeed the system stays intact and operative.

And so this is why I say that democracy is destined to perpetuate itself. For, it doesn’t matter what the name is; whatever form of government is operating, it indeed operates in the manner that it does, which is to say, irrationally.

People just need to believe in something. It doesn’t matter what it is. But in so far as we don’t take responsibility for the world that we create, thereby do we allow people to make up their own world, and thus we define what is irrational with respect to the system, which is to say, that which will cause the system to deconstruct.

This is the problem of modernity, not the problem of democracy. For, we shall see soon enough with the human being is actually doing, what it actually is, besides a bunch of rational and irrational human beings that all exist in a common category creating their own world. The world that humanity creates will always be the world that functions. And this functioning will not cease by virtue of the fact that it is indeed functioning despite what our rationality would like to determine as history in the objective case.

The irony is this: 1+1 = 2, whether we are looking at it or not, and ultimately, because we concieve those things, that is, only for use. It is both. It is not an argument to be made; the results of the argument are internal to that situation, not determining of what it is. And, it is all there is, determining what is.

Both are true.

*X

Whew! Damn. That was like a mouth full of marbles!! 😜

Xxxx

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s