1491) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 21.05.2021, 21:31, 21:46; Great Again, 21.05.2021, 23:19; Otto, 21.05.2021, 23:58 (8260-8263)

Above the gate of hell is the statement: „The Divine Omnipotence, the Supreme Wisdom and the First Love have built me up.“

„And he said to me: »You know, the place is round; and even if you have already advanced very far to the left, in the descent into the bottom, you have not yet completely succeeded in the circle.«

„With my gaze I returned to all the seven spheres, and I saw this globe so that I had to smile at its lowly appearance.“ - Dante.

Dante can be interpreted that the devil is the first one who is really in the world, in the middle of the world, in the earth's core.

Great Again wrote:

„Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

»The best-selling philosophy book of the 20th century.
Do you know which book it is?« ** **

Yes.“ ** **

Which book is it?

If it is true that the affectivity state of mood - the moodiness - is the basic event of our existence, something like a basic existential way of the equally original comprehension of world (cf. Heidegger), depending on its way it uncovers the being in the whole (cf. Heidegger), then it is extraordinarily important for the epistemology, because it predetermines the knowledge. It decides for or against knowledge in certain ways.

This also explains the question that you, Obsrvr, asked once, namely: whether it is not better to orient oneself not according to truth and reality, but according to the prohibitions and commandments of power. Back then, I thought that was the most important question I have read here on ILP so far.

The state of feeling is important; but so is the knowledge. I am assuming that feeling is something irrational (which is not the same as anti-rational) and knowledge is something rational. If now the affectivity determines whether it wants to participate in knowledge at all and, if so, decides in favor of certain knowledge, then the power and lobby of knowledge can not resist against it at first, but later it can make the affectivity its subject in order to be able to influence it then, so that the affectivity would be tricked and only „believed“ to determine, although in reality it got into dependence on the power and lobby of knowledge.

It is similar with the rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. At first, mathematics faces the irrational numbers powerlessly, but then it makes them its subject and integrates them, so that it - mathematics, which sees itself as something rational - gets power over the irrational. Mathematics still understands itself as something rational and has integrated much irrational, i.e. has learned to control it.

Encode Decode wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Or a question! A good philosopher should be a good questioner.

One could proceed in such a way that opening posts that do not contain arguments or questions are moved to the non-philosophical chat subforum. In case of repetition, a warning or ban will be issued.« ** **

Yes, I agree with: good questioner - actually a good question can encourage a fruitful conversation much like a good argument.“ **

To be able to ask means to be able to wait, even for a lifetime.

„For the pensive God hates untimely growth.“ - J. C. F. Hölderlin.

Encode Decode wrote

„Otto wrote:

»Maybe we should have God as our moderator.

What do you think about that?« ** **

I think you have a sense of humor - I think a sense of humor is a good thing. It can help us stay sane.

That is what I think.“ **

Thanks. Thanks to God as well.

1492) Great Again, 22.05.2021, 01:09; Kultur, 22.05.2021, 02:05 (8364-8365)

Otto wrote:

„Encode Decode wrote:

»Kathrina wrote:

›Or a question! A good philosopher should be a good questioner.

One could proceed in such a way that opening posts that do not contain arguments or questions are moved to the non-philosophical chat subforum. In case of repetition, a warning or ban will be issued.‹ ** **

Yes, I agree with: good questioner - actually a good question can encourage a fruitful conversation much like a good argument.« **

To be able to ask means to be able to wait, even for a lifetime.

„For the pensive God hates untimely growth.“ - J. C. F. Hölderlin.“ ** **

A good quote.

On the importance of questions I wrote in another thread:

Great Again wrote:

„If it is true that the affectivity state of mood - the moodiness - is the basic event of our existence, something like a basic existential way of the equally original comprehension of world (cf. Heidegger), depending on its way it uncovers the being in the whole (cf. Heidegger), then it is extraordinarily important for the epistemology, because it predetermines the knowledge. It decides for or against knowledge in certain ways.

This also explains the question that you, Obsrvr, asked once, namely: whether it is not better to orient oneself not according to truth and reality, but according to the prohibitions and commandments of power. Back then, I thought that was the most important question I have read here on ILP so far.

The state of feeling is important; but so is the knowledge. I am assuming that feeling is something irrational (which is not the same as anti-rational) and knowledge is something rational. If now the affectivity determines whether it wants to participate in knowledge at all and, if so, decides in favor of certain knowledge, then the power and lobby of knowledge can not resist against it at first, but later it can make the affectivity its subject in order to be able to influence it then, so that the affectivity would be tricked and only „believed“ to determine, although in reality it got into dependence on the power and lobby of knowledge.

It is similar with the rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. At first, mathematics faces the irrational numbers powerlessly, but then it makes them its subject and integrates them, so that it - mathematics, which sees itself as something rational - gets power over the irrational. Mathematics still understands itself as something rational and has integrated much irrational, i.e. has learned to control it.“ ** **

Yes, this is true, and we can learn from history, for example from the ancient Roman one, because Rome from about 200 BC. until its end, which it did not even notice, was a center of attraction, not to the extent that Western states have been being since the introduction of their type of socialism (money distribution system towards the upper class [0.001-1%] and the lower class [precarity] at the expense of the middle class), but nevertheless a center of attraction with the prospect of being granted Roman citizenship in order to be able to participate in certain advantages over the non-Roman world.

1493) Great Again, 23.05.2021, 20:40, 21:48, 22:19, 23:39 (8366-8369)

Heidegger sees first and foremost through his own lens; he can certainly be classified as someone for whom a time before him and a time after him can be named, that is, as someone who himself set a milestone. In this sense, Heidegger also interprets truth in a Heideggerian way. That means concretely: He interprets truth as unconcealment (ancient Greek: alethia).

Heidegger started from the Pre-Socratics, especially from Heraclitus, and claimed that with Plato the change of the essence of truth began.

How Heidegger interprets Nietzsche in this context:

„Truth is the kind of error without which a certain kind of living being could not live.“ (Nietzsche, record from the year 1885, The Will to Power, n. 493). If truth, according to Nietzsche, is a kind of error, then its essence lies in a way of thinking, which falsifies the real every time, and that necessarily, insofar as namely every imagining stands still the incessant „becoming“ and sets up with the thus established, opposite to the flowing „becoming“, a nonconforming, i.e. false and thus an erroneous as the supposedly real.

In Nietzsche's determination of truth as the falsity of thought lies the assent to the traditional essence of truth as the rightness of stating (logos). Nietzsche's concept shows the last reflection of the outermost consequence of that change of truth from the unconcealment of being to the correctness of looking. The change itself takes place in the determination of the being (das Sein) of the being (das Seiende [the „attendant“]) as idea.

According to this interpretation of being, the attendant is no longer, as in the beginning of Western thought, the rise of the hidden into the unconcealed, whereby this itself as the unconcealment constitutes the basic feature of the attendant. Plato understands the presence (ousia) as idea. However, this is not subject to the unconcealedness, in that it brings the unconcealed, serving it, to appear. Rather, vice versa, the shining - appearing, seeming - determines what may still be called unconcealedness within its essence and in the only reference back to it. The idea is not a representing foreground of the aletheia, but the reason that makes it possible. But even so, the idea still claims something of the initial, but unknown essence of the aletheia.

Plato's thinking follows the change of the essence of truth, which change becomes the history of metaphysics, which has begun its unconditional completion in Nietzsche's thinking. Plato's doctrine of „truth“ is therefore nothing past.

Cf. Heidegger, „Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit“, 1931/'32, Lecture, 1931p. 35-36, 39.

*
*   *

One would thus have to create the paradisiacal situation where truth is not „set against the commandments and prohibitions of power“ (**), where „to pursue truth“ not means „to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself“ (**).

It is not possible to make rational numbers from irrational numbers. For centuries, mathematicians have been working to turn irrational numbers into rational numbers.

Myreasoning was that it must also be the case in philosophy that the irrational cannot simply be made rational. One can integrate the irrational, so that one can work with it (as one can calculate with it in mathematics), but one cannot eliminate it from the world, e.g. by simply declaring it to be something rational. In philosophy it must be possible - and it is possible - to integrate the irrational in such a way that it results together with the rational in something real (as in the case of mathematics also: real numbers as a set with the two subsets of rational numbers and irrational numbers).

If you (**) have feelings, you have feelings; if the reason comes in, it is the reason, and the reason is rational.

Since we have enough irrationals here in this forum, it would be a possibility: to try to pick them up in the forest first, sometimes bring them back to the forest, and keep doing so until at least some of them know the way out of and to the forest and soon may realize that they can live better outside the forest.

When were these four volumes (**) first published?

There are several books by Heidegger on Nietzsche.

1494) Great Again, 24.05.2021, 01:22, 01:31, 01:36, 01:43, 03:25, 03:51, 13:33, 13:38, 15:12, 15:27 (8370-8379)

No, they were not concerned with „the authoritarian globalist narrative“ (**) at all. If one has good arguments for the statement that up to now truth has been misunderstood or that is taken for truth what is false, then one should already take this argument seriously, even more so if one sees oneself as a philosopher. If you forget the question of being, you have also forgotten philosophy - it doesn't have to be, but it can be a disadvantage - for all.

Not mankind but European people have made the progress, have always carried it on and are still carrying it on today. But these people are in the process of dying out. The other humans as the huge human rest are interested only in the pleasant side of the Occidental technology, but do not want to do anything for the fact that this can be preserved, but hate it. In other words, these other humans have an ambivalent relationship to Occidental technology: they fight it to the death, but want the luxury it brings.

What I say is that we must not underestimate irrationality, so we must not disregard it, because that would be perhaps even the biggest mistake!

Remember how the mathematicians did it with the irrational numbers! They gave them an extra area („the forest“):a subset of the set of the real numbers. Since they did that, more peace has returned to the world of numbers, so that mathematicians could turn to new problems. In any case, no more „revolt“ is expected from the irrational numbers.

In philosophy or in real life it is different, although the problem is basically not much different. So we have to integrate the irrationals philosophically and also in terms of life, so that they don't overwhelm us and maybe even defeat us in the end. That's why I opened this thread, and that's why I opened it in the philosophical subforum rather than the mathematical one. It is an important topic!

By the word „integrate“, I can never mean „support“ or even „reinforce“, which is what the O'Bidens are already doing: giving the irrationals the certainty of victory, supporting and reinforcing them where they can. If we - the rationals - continue to downsize, especially demographically, then we are helpless against the irrationals. So we have to come up with other measures. „Integrate“ in this case means „subordinate“ and „mitigate“, „immobilize“, „pacify“.

I was just about to reply to the rest of your original text.

Where did you hide it?

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„Which book is it?“ ** **

Let me guess.

Yes. Thank you (**).

Because I knew that with word „integrate“ could cause misunderstanding, I started to add something before you replied to my above post. Have you read the added yet? If not:

Great Again wrote:

„By the word »integrate«, I can never mean »support« or even »reinforce«, which is what the O'Bidens are already doing: giving the irrationals the certainty of victory, supporting and reinforcing them where they can. If we - the rationals - continue to downsize, especially demographically, then we are helpless against the irrationals. So we have to come up with other measures. »Integrate« in this case means »subordinate« and »mitigate«, »immobilize«, »pacify«.“ ** **

We should not let anybody dictate to us the meaning of any word (think of George Orwell). The word „integration“ has never meant anything political in former times. But if it means something political now, it should not be left to one side alone. That would be a mistake again!

Get your words straight!

Hunters? Are you (**) sure they did not mean Bidens: Hunter and Joe Biden?

Ludolf's number, also known as the number pi, the circle number, is a transcendental and therefore irrational number that gives the constant ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter: 3.1459265358979346... (a non-periodic, infinite decimal number). Mathematicians and meanwhile also computers cannot make a rational number out of this number, because they cannot determine the non-periodicity resp. the infinity in periodicity resp. finiteness. Is it because they are simply incapable of it? Obviously yes. Or? Why can't they? And: Why is there such a number?

Mathematicians cannot give the answer to this question. Who can? If at all, then the philosophers (metaphysicians, ontologists).

But there is always someone who is questioning this answer. Why? Because there is irrationality in it. Why?

Why is there irrationality and not only rationality? And why is there so very much more irrationality than rationality?

Is it because of stupidity? Why is there so much stupidity?

Why can't this question be answered with 100% rationality, but only again with more or less irrationality, even if the relative proportion becomes smaller and smaller.

*
*   *

I was not talking about time travels (**), but time travels can also be used as an example, because: Time travels are imaginable, but we can't (yet) imagine that they are also feasible, because we don't know whether they are feasible or not, i.e. we also don't know that they are not feasible. We don't know anything about it, because we are (yet) too stupid, because we can't (yet) rationally comprehend it.

But notice that I did not ask: Does time travel exist or not? I asked: Why does it exist or not?

The arrow of time? Is there an arrow of time? And if so: Why does it exist? Why should we not be able to travel into the past? Or: Why should we?

*
*   *

Why does Ludolf's number exist? And especially: Why does it exist as such a number?
Why is Planck's quantum of action what it is? Why is the Planck time what it is? Why are all Planck units what they are?
Or the philosophical question par excellence:
Why is being at all and not rather nothing? (Leibniz). We can only think and speak (philosophize) about it. And why is that?
Why is there so much stupidity in the universe?
Are we in the world? And if yes: Why are we in the world? And if no: Why not?
Is there individuation? And if yes: Why? And if no: Why not?
Does subjectivity exist? And if yes: Why? And if no: Why not?
Is there objectivity? And if yes: Why? And if no: Why not?
Why are there gravitation, electromagnetism and the two interactions in the nucleus of the atoms? Why are these alleged constants constant? Why do they have these amounts? Why not others?
Why does the universe exist? Or does it not exist at all?
Why does nature exist? Or does it not exist at all?
Why does God exist? Or does He not exist at all? (The same question for atheists: Why does nature exist? Or does „It“ - the alleged selector, their false god - not exist at all?)
Why is there love?

Science does not deal with questions of thought. Heiddeger said: „Science does not think“.

The most of our rational statements also contain irrationality. It can only be a matter of making the share of the irrational as small as possible. Because we are not able to abolish the irrational. Why is there irrationality? Who really knows?

*
*   *

A thinker or philosopher must be a questioner or skeptic.

Oddly enough, the whole sentence I wrote did not appear. So here it comes:

Great Again wrote:

„We should not let anybody dictate to us the meaning of any word (think of George Orwell). The word "integration" has never meant anything political in former times. But if it means something political now, it should not be left to one side alone. That would be a mistake again!“ ** **

„We should not let anybody dictate to us“ - this part did not appear.

Why? Hunter? No, I did not mark completely, so that a part of the sentence has not been copied. Sorry.

Irrationality or arationality goes beyond the rational, cannot be subjected to logic.

Also the so-called „pre-rational“, whose results are only processed by the ratio, is counted to the irrational.

I am of the opinion that we can orient ourselves very well at the definition of the irrational numbers mean. If it were not so, the irrational numbers would not be called as they are called. They are irrational!

Also the irrational numbers cannot be subjected to the logic, provided that one understands rationality by logic. If the irrational numbers could be subjected to the logic, they would be periodic resp. finite. But they are non-periodic resp. infinite. They are irrational!

This mathematical definition is the best starting point, in order to understand the irrational also altogether better.

And we should proceed phenomenologically. So throw away all prejudices about irrationality. Just as mathematicians do it.

So irrationality is nothing bad or good and even more nothing political in the sense of a political mission (as many of today's politicians want to tell us, although they don't know at all what they are talking about when they „judge“ irrationality). So, no pre-judgments, condemnations or judgments, just phenomenological descriptions that serve to develop a philosophy of the irrational.

Integrating the irrational in such a way that after integration one can continue as if the irrational had not been integrated at all. That could be the strategy. Because this was also the strategy of the mathematicians, when they admitted the irrational numbers as mathematical sets, i.e. integrated them into mathematics.

But if also mathematicians already began to let the irrational dictate to them what they have to do and to omit, then mathematics would be finished. Mathematicians understand mathematics as a rational task.

1495) Great Again, 25.05.2021, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.05.2021, 01:18, 01:38, 01:56, 02:06, 02:20; Great Again, 25.05.2021, 03:02; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.05.2021, 03:35; Great Again, 25.05.2021, 04:13; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.05.2021, 04:26; Great Again, 25.05.2021, 04:40; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.05.2021, 04:52; Great Again, 25.05.2021, 19:25, 20:03, 21:08, 21:31, 21:47 (8380-8398)

There is no confusion, because I have spoken about the suggestion that one should start from the mathematical definition (read my text about it), in order to come afterwards to a philosophy of the irrational.

Great Again wrote:

„This mathematical definition is the best starting point, in order to understand the irrational also altogether better.“ ** **

I never used the definition of the mathematical „irrational“, i.e. the one for the „irrational numbers“, together with the linguistic (lexical) definition or the usage in the common language.

@ Magnus Anderson.

The irrational is a cognition, thought, speech or action without the participation of the rational. More precisely, it is something characterized by no or insufficient use of reason and by a transcendent (not transzendental!) use.

Platon wrote:

„We cannot be spared, for the purpose of defense, to examine closely the proposition of our father Parmenides, and to force the non-being that it is in some respect, and on the other hand the being that it is not.
....
Lightly, it seems to me, Parmenides has spoken to us, as well as in general all who have ever dared to divide the being, to determine it according to number and kind. What each of them tells us seems to me like a story, as if we were children.
....
Since we ... are at a loss, you must make it sufficiently clear to us what you actually want to designate by using the expression 'being'. For you obviously have known this for a long time; however, we also believed this before, but now we are at a loss. So teach us first about it, so that we do not imagine that we understand what you say, while quite the opposite is the case.
....
But the philosopher ... must ... say: what is unmoved and what is moved is the being as well as the universe.
....
Not ... is the being movement and standstill together, but something different from it.
....
But we have not only shown that the non-being is, but we have also shown what appearance the being of the non-being has.
....
Do not come to us ... that we put the non-being as a counterpart of the being and thereupon dare to say that it is. With an opposite, whether it is or is not, whether it is reasonable in itself or completely inexplicable, we have not been doing with it for a long time.“

Deutscher Text, aus dem ins Englische übersetzt worden ist:

„Es kann uns zum Zwecke der Verteidigung nicht erspart werden, den Satz unseres Vaters Parmenides genau zu prüfen und das Nichtseiende zu zwingen, daß es in gewisser Hinsicht ist, und andererseits das Seiende, daß es nicht ist.
....
Leichthin, scheint mir, hat Parmenides zu uns gesprochen, sowie überhaupt alle, die sich je an die Teilung des Seienden gewagt haben, es nach Zahl und Art zu bestimmen. Wie eine Geschichte kommt mir vor, was jeder von ihnen uns erzählt, als wären wir Kinder.
....
Da wir ... nicht weiterwissen, so müßt ihr uns genügend klarmachen, was ihr eigentlich damit bezeichnen wollt, wenn ihr euch des Ausdrucks »seiend« bedient. Denn ihr wißt dies offenbar schon lange; wir glaubten dies allerdings früher auch, jetzt aber sind wir ratlos. Also belehrt uns zunächst darüber, damit wir uns nicht einbilden, wir verstünden, was ihr sagt, während doch ganz das Gegenteil der Fall ist.
....
Der Philosoph aber ... muß ... sagen: das, was unbewegt und was bewegt ist, ist das Seiende wie auch das All.
....
Nicht ... ist das Seiende Bewegung und Stillstand zusammen, sondern ein von diesem Verschiedenes.
....
Wir haben aber nicht nur aufgewiesen, daß das Nichtseiende ist, sondern auch gezeigt, welches Aussehen das Sein des Nichtseienden hat.
....
Komme uns ... keiner mit der Rede, daß wir das Nichtseiende als Gegenstück des Seienden hinstellten und daraufhin zu sagen wagten, daß es sei. Mit einem Gegensatz, ob es ist oder nicht ist, ob es in sich vernünftig oder ganz und gar unerklärlich ist, haben wir es bei ihm schon lange nicht mehr zu tun.“

Platon, Der Sophist, 241d, 242c, 244a, 249c, 250c, 258d, 258e (S. 81, 83, 87-88, 105, 109, 135, 137).

Great Again wrote:

„Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

»Which book is it?« ** **

Let me guess.“ ** **

And how long will it take you?

Great Again wrote:

„The irrational is a cognition, thought, speech or action without the participation of the rational. More precisely, it is something characterized by no or insufficient use of reason and by a transcendent (not transzendental!) use.“ ** **

I agree. The irrational is the unreasonable (illogical), is not or not completely comprehensible by the ratio, is not accessible to the logical thinking, is that which the rational simply or yet almost completely lacks.

I have not read everything here. But I think it's up to you whether you want to talk about belief or something else. The title of this thread is: „Can philosophy integrate the irrational as mathematics can“ (**|**). So this thread is not only about irrationality, which means that you can just as well talk about integrating the irrational into the rational, and that is exactly what has happened here so far, at least judging by what I have read. According to the title of this thread, I would say that it is primarily about the integration of the irrational into the rational through philosophy, and this integration can be compared to the one that mathematics has done with the irrational numbers.

And currently freedom is approaching zero.

Why don't you (**) just stick to the title of this thread?

Besides, the relationship of the rational and irrational numbers as subsets of the set of real numbers has long been pointed out. I guess you didn't read that.

Moreover, the title of the thread pretends that the point is not to integrate the rational into the irrational, but to integrate the irrational into the rational. Just read it.

Magnus Anderson asked for a definition for the „irrational“ (**). That is why I gave him this definition (**|**). So it is just a definition for the „irrational“. Wikipedia gives almost the same definition:

Wikipedia wrote:

„Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives“ **

However, this thread is not only about the irrational, as Sleyor Wellhuxwell also pointed out (**|**), but it is mainly about how philosophy can manage to integrate the irrational into the rational. As an example I mentioned mathematics, which can be a pattern for integration, but of course is not in a 1:1 relation to philosophy. However, all this can already be read in the opening post and in the further course in many of my posts.

I have also given several examples. Only you don't seem to accept them. There is no rational explanation for why Ludolf's number exists or for the fact that this number corresponds exactly to the amount/value to which it corresponds.There is no rational explanation for why Ludolf's number exists or for the fact that this number corresponds exactly to the amount/value to which it corresponds. There is also no rational explanation for why there is gravitation, if there is gravitation. This and more why-questions I have posted. Also the love I have mentioned as an example there (**|**). There are innumerable examples. There are more examples for irrationality than for rationality. Irrationality does not mean simply nonsense. Explain to me once, Meno or Obsrvr, why the universe exists, if it exists, or, especially for you, Obsrvr, why there is affectance, if it exists. In the end, one ends up in almost all cases with God or with the question why in the universe (the „nature“) everything is set the way it is set (compare „constants“) or with the question: „Why is there being and not rather nothing?“ (Leibniz). One cannot give rational answers to these questions. Therefore, one should consider the irrational. If one never tries it, then one also cannot know whether the irrational can help us to understand everything in all better (thus: rationally, as the mathematicians do).

Can we say that it is something like a philosophical experiment or a metaphysical experiment?

If you don't mean it satirically: yes.

Just look at this globalistic chaos called „Corona“, in which the irrational seems to have won. Seriously: The irrational dominates more anyway. You are lucky if you live on an island called „the West“, because the rational had been ruling there for a long time. This now seems to be coming to an end.

But we cannot fight this irrational simply with rational. That is not enough for reasons that I have already addressed here almost countless times. The conclusion is that we must study the irrational, insofar as we can, and try to integrate it, which means that we must try to make it serve us. The rational has only this one possibility if it wants to stand against the irrational, which is on the rise everywhere.

I know what you mean. We are facing a planned dumbing down - the irrational is globally on top anyway - books are no longer read, only the nonsense on the internet, which is contaminated more and more with irrational stuff. And in addition to that, the culture in which the rational has been overdimensionally strong now sees itself exposed to an irrational power and does not know how to defend itself against it, especially since demography also contributes to the fact that this process runs exponentially.

Rage is also a good example of irrationality. But dealing with rage, again, can be something rational, and it should be.

In the West, however, rage is also a taboo. For it the eros is all the stronger: the greed!

Some will now ask for definitions again.

„Define the word »again«.“

@ Magnus Anderson. **

The examples you have given as „my definitions“ are not in every case my definitions and also not always definitions (do you always use definitions when you speak? No, you use meanings, and the meanings refer to morphemes, words, sentences and whole texts, which can be understood without definitions). You could have noticed that too. And you did not mention that the one definition I gave you is the same that Wikipedia gives.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives“ **

Besides, Magnus, you are not a little child anymore and should have your own definition of „irrational“. And if you had one, then we wouldn't have to spend days arguing about a definition. So I think you are getting at something else or just don't understand what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said about the „modern definition of the term »irrational number«“ that „the word »irrational« had nothing to do with human ability to reason“ (**). And this is wrong, because the word „irrational“ would have disappeared from the expression „irrational numbers“ long ago, if it had nothing to do with the irrational in humans. The „irrational numbers“ are irrational!

I do not have to go into this again and again, because I have already done it often enough. Anyone with a normal everyday mind knows exactly what I mean. Also, even the representatives of the Deep State would immediately answer to my question what it means to „integrate the irrational into the rational“, that this is what they do all the time, because from their point of view they also do nothing else than to bring the people to reason, because they believe that the people with their irrationality otherwise do the wrong thing. Whether these representatives of the Deep State are right about that is a completely different question.

1.) The definitions you quoted do not differ from each other as much as you claimed. They basically say the same thing.

Others, which you have also declared as „definitions“, are none at all. There is not even the word „irrational“ in these „definitions“ quoted by you. You have proceeded very amateurishly.

2.) The cause for the fact that I have modified my first definition by the other three each a little (and only in such a way that they do not leave the core of the definition) is you, Magnus. Yes, you yourself.

In the OP I gave the first definition. To which you replied that you did not understand it (**). Then I gave you a second definition because I wanted to help you (!), whereupon you again replied that you did not understand it. Then I gave you a third definition because I wanted to help you (!), to which you again replied that you did not understand it (**). Then I gave you a fourth definition, because I wanted to help you (!), whereupon you again replied that you did not understand it (**).

Then you accused me that those definitions „don't paint a clear picture“. So you accuse me of something for which you yourself are the cause.

I was only trying to help you when I gave the further definitions, which, as I said, do not deviate much at all from the core of the first definition in the OP. So indirectly you accuse me of having helped you.

All in all, nothing good what you are saying.

3.) If you do not understand the meaning of the word „irrational“, not understand the definitions I gave and all of them (also the one from Wikipedia) state that the irrational goes above, beside and below the rational (see figure), then you either have problems with understanding itself, so you should learn to understand (I recommend then a hermeneutics course), or you aim at a goal, e.g.: discrediting another member of the „community“ ILP.

Once again, my definition of „irrational“ agrees with the one Wikipedia gives.

I followed the rules of the game and tried to help you because you did not understand something. You thank me by reproaching me for my helpfulness.

You probably do not like my resp. Wikipedia's definition because you reject the irrational and therefore ignore it. Many do that. They want to keep it under control - if possible immediately. But this does not work. And by the way, that was the reason why I opened this thread. The irrational is not totally controllable - and certainly not immediately.

Obsrvr wrote:

„As to why affectance exists -

Most briefly he explains that people get to choose what ontology they wish to use for whatever need they have. It isn't an issue of which is true - but rather which is best suited for your purpose (referencing relativity and quantum physics as examples).“ **

This has nothing to do with the question I wanted you to answer.

Great Again wrote:

„Explain to me once, Meno or Obsrvr, why the universe exists, if it exists, or, especially for you, Obsrvr, why there is affectance, if it exists.“ ** **

It is about the why question: why is there affectance? How does affectance come into the universe? That is the question.

I give in my own words the definition of „affectance“ given by James S. Saint:

„Affectance = ultra-tiny influences or changes in affect potential. .... - Affectance: - Physics: Ultra-tiny, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses, where »positive« is electrically positive potential and »negative« is electrically negative potential.“
The other definition is the one you quoted last:
„Existence == that which has affect or potential to affect.« (**).“ **
In fact, if you rearrange this sentence a little bit, it tells us:
„Affect or potential to affect is existence“.
So James was an existential philosopher. And I too would like the topic of my thread to be understood in terms of existential philosophy. Please do not say now „I would not say that James was an existential philosopher“. That is irrelevant. But my question remains: Why is there such a thing? So I am not asking now about affect, affectance, potential to affect, but about the „is“!

Has James given an answer to this? (I have, as I said, not read the whole Mithus book).

An existential philosopher asks about the „is“ (the „==“ in your definition quote). And in doing so, he touches on a subject I have pointed out many times here. It boils down to God, or questions like this: „Why is something at all and not rather nothing?“ (Leibniz).

So you are saying that the universe exists because our perception exists.

A critic would now say that this is wrong. And he would ask you for proofs of your assertion which you cannot give clearly and speak instead only of a „mandate“ which „applies as long as it applies“(until the counter-mandate namely).

Note: I am playing the „critic's lawyer“ here. My opinion on this is another matter.

I know that argument.

Now my questions:
Do you agree that there is death?
Do you know what death means?
Do you agree if someone says that nothingness is not the only alternative to existence?
Are the alternatives, if they exist, all irrational?
And if they are irrational, then your answer should actually be that there is no rational alternative to existence. We talk or should talk about the relation between the irrational and the rational. There are under circumstances innumerable alternatives, but all of them are irrational.

What I am saying is that it is very difficult to fight the irrational because it is so powerful.

„Credo quia absurdum est“ („I believe because it is absurd“, means that I believe because it is contrary to reason (i.e. because it exceeds the capacity of reason).

But you should continue like this, because you can actually come the irrational only with rational arguments.

I know that premise perfectly well. And it is a rational one - very sympathic. But you have no irrational „argument“.

1496) Great Again, 26.05.2021, 02:09, 03:14, 03:27 (8399-8401)

Obsrvr wrote:

Great Again wrote:

»I know that premise perfectly well. And it is a rational one - very sympathic. But you have no irrational ›argument‹.« ** **

You want an »Irrational« argument?“ **

The quotation marks are set differently. I claim with the quotation marks at the word „argument“ that the irrational can present arguments only under certain conditions, because arguments are a matter of the rational. You claim with the quotation marks at the word „irrational“ that the irrational is the not-really-to-be-taken-seriously and nevertheless assign complete justification to the argument in your term. This shows that we are arguing from two different sides. And since I play the role of the critic's advocate here (with the criticism against the rational), I have to defend the irrational, because I am of the opinion that one can only get a grip on the irrational via the way of experience with the irrational. Because: the fact that the irrational is in the world, and unfortunately with more power than the rational - you don't deny that either.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Why?“ **

As I said: I am playing the critic's lawyer.

And we can affirm the following question:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„Can we say that it is something like a philosophical experiment or a metaphysical experiment?“ ** **

Obsrvr wrote:

„»Existence requires affect because Mr Trump said COVID came from China.«

How's that?

Nice.

Obsrvr wrote:

„And please answer the question -

Obsrvr wrote:

»Are you claiming to believe that something that has absolutely no affect on anything at all exists?« (**).“ **

I don't claim or necessarily believe that something that has absolutely no influence on anything exists; however, I do claim (on behalf of my clients) that this belief has always been, is, and will always be an option for people.

My clients say that no one knows the final answers (not even the fabled James S. Saint) - except God, if He exists, and if so, then this is a matter more of belief, thus more of irrationality than of rationality.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

„»Can you name that something?« (**).“ **

If it exists, then it could be God. But if so, then we could not say „God is ...“, because „is“ is a matter of being, of existence.

According to Aristotle, God is »unmoved« but has »moved« something. Therefore, it is not him.

James S. Saint also spoke of a »real God«, but this one can't be meant here either, because according to him the affectance is at home in the real. I do not know James S. Saint's „RM:AO“ well enough in this context. But I hope you will tell me right away what James S. Saint meant by that „something“.

By the way:

Why did James S. Saint not get a Nobel Prize?

Because of the fact that irrationalists rule. Right?

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

›Which book is it?‹ ** **

Let me guess.« ** **

And how long will it take you?“ ** **

Not so long.

Animals have an environment, humans have a world.
Animals adapt to the environment, humans do the opposite.

Humans have bare skin, walk upright on two legs, have graceful hands with a thumb that they can put in an opposition position to the other fingers (humans can i.e. throw, they are throwers; they can use their hands like tools and use them to make other tools, first of all throwing tools, later vaccines and nanobots), they have brains so complex that they could conquer and have conquered the whole world with their technology, they made themselves gods.

In nature, a naked skin, the bipedalism, the upright walk, the graceful hands and, above all, the very complex brain are of no use to humans at all - on the contrary: all these cultural advantages are only disadvantages in nature. Humans are not capable of surviving in a purely natural way; they can survive only thanks to their culture, which is based on their non-natural resp. anti-natural features.

Human culture is a culture opposed to nature. It is based on distanciation, not on adaptation.

In rudiments, a little human resemblance can be detectable in some apes (i.e. chimpanzees, bonobos). But you only have to look at these apes and observe them for a longer time to realize that they are very far away from humans.

The early beginning of the human world domination.

1497) Great Again, 27.05.2021, 03:51, 03:57; Alf, 27.05.2021, 14:27, 14:39, 14:54, 17:01; Herr Schütze, 27.05.2021, 17:17; Great Again, 27.05.2021, 18:58 (8402-8408)

That (**) is a good poetic and at the same time philosophical statement. Also, perhaps most importantly, this statement contains something like the beginning of what I mean when I talk about dealing with the irrational and trying to tame it (not eliminate it, because that does not work).

The great time of Occidental mathematics is long gone. It moves itself meanwhile in the direction of irrationality and very far away from reality. Who can still check that there is a space with n-th dimension. Such an assertion is closer to the irrational than to the rational. I do not want to say that mathematicians should not do this - they do it anyway -, but I want to say that also mathematics has limits concerning the relation between rationality and irrationality.

It is also interesting to note the parallel between the history of Occidental mathematics and the history of Occidental physics. Where are the successes of both compared to other fields which, while based on mathematics and physics, are advancing things that are less and less in the realm of physics itself and the realm mathematics itself, but more and more in the application we call „technology“.
Thus, informatics, as an original branch of mathematics, evolved into the field of engineering. In general, technology has triumphed. It is no longer about the „Great Leaps“of the past in science and auxiliary science, but almost solely about the application in technology. In other words, technology is taking rationality to pursue goals that are, for the most part, completely irrational.

To understand in more detail why all these irrational „ideas“ are in the world and why they move and prevail at exponential speed, one should take a course of study in irrationality.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»To understand in more detail why all these irrational ›ideas‹ are in the world and why they move and prevail at exponential speed, one should take a course of study in irrationality.« ** **

I suspect that today a course like that would be similar to the courses on »Critical Race Theory« taught in the US - an »anti-race« course that declares that all whites and anything whites are better at accomplishing is racist (taught of course by racists). They would end up teaching that anything that whites do is irrational (and that includes all rational maths, logic, philosophy, and any other intellectual skills).“ **

Shouldn't we be well aware of all of these irrational „ideas“ in order to draw conclusions about how to deal with them rationally, how to face this on a rational level?

Of course we should!

Yes (**|**), and group solidarity is even more prevalent than in urban areas.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I am not a dyed-in-the-wool theologian, but in my opinion, many people are falsely convinced that God is only allowed to be good, as if they themselves determine how God has to be, namely in such a way that he pleases them, while they themselves, however, are allowed to be as they want.« ** **

I am also not a theologian but I think what they mean to be saying is that God defines what good is. Good is not above God and some standard to hold God to - but the other way around - if it is against God it is not good.

That is my own reasoning based merely on the idea that God is God and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it - so accept it as a fixed, immutable barrier to any effort made against it. Fighting that which cannot ever be changed is insanity and thus - not good.“ **

Behind this insanity is usually the will to be like God.

You are suffering from a very traumatic father complex.

Kennt der Teufel nationale Grenzen oder auch nur kontinentale Grenzen? Nein, er meint immer alle Menschen, und die leben bis heute auf diesem Globus, weshalb der Teufel besonders gerne Globalist ist.

Er zieht sich auch gerne das antiweiße Rassismus-Hemd an, wenn die Umstände dafür günstig sind, und das ist gegenwärtig der Fall.

Die antiweiße Rassismus-Karte wird aus dem Ärmel gezogen, weil es besonders gegen diejenigen Weißen geht, bei denen Geld und Vermögen zu holen ist, bei denen abgezockt werden kann und deren Intelligenz als Feindobjekt bekämpft werden soll. Dazu gehören besonders die westlichen Weißen und unter ihnen wiederum besonders die Germanen, und unter diesen wiederum besonders die Deutschen.

Wenn die wirtschaftliche Solidarität nicht mehr gewährleistet ist, weil es immer mehr Menschen gibt, die sich an dieser Solidarität nicht beteiligen, dann bricht eine Gemeinschaft irgendwann unweigerlich zusammen. Dieses Thema läuft unter dem in Ökonomie und Geschichte geläufigen Ausdruck „Tragik der Allmende“.

Aus Sicht bestimmter Menschen ist der Teufel irrational, doch der Teufel kann durchaus sehr rational sein. Rationalität und Irrationalität tauchen immer gemeinsam auf. Sie sind „phänomenologische Zwillinge“.

Denken Sie auch an den Pakt, den Faust und Mephisto geschlossen haben.

Would you even know anything about what you just talked about, if you didn't already know something about the irrational?

In what you have told, there is already so much knowledge about the irrational, that you could almost not tell anything more, if you had not always taken it into account.

Maybe that knowledge about the irrational is dangerous for many, but that is just also one of the main points to be discussed here.

I mean, we are here or should be here in a philosophy forum, right?

1498) Herr Schütze, 28.05.2021, 01:59; Otto, 28.05.2021, 04:58; Great Again, 28.05.2021, 19:01, 21:24, 23:08, 23:12 (8410-8315)

Die Mund-Nasen-Maskerade und die anschließende Impfung hätten nicht stattfinden dürfen – das habe ich schon gesagt, als dieser ganze Wahnsinn bei uns begann (März 2020) -, denn früher wurden bei einer „normalen“ Grippe nicht gleich hysterisch derartige Maßnahmen befohlen. Es geht um etwas anderes. Das ist klar.

There were no parties in Rome as we know them, but nevertheless there were two camps that could be called just „Roman parties“, and these two camps were first the patriciate and the plebs (plebeians), then the optimates and populars, before the whole thing became purely private, but nevertheless again two camps emerged (while the senate was already quite paralyzed): Marians and Sullans, Caesarians and Pompeians, and even Augustus, at the time when he was still called Octavian, faced another camp, that of Antony. Only Augustus ended this old political dichotomy and with it the republic.

Since Marius' military reform the soldiers had become followers of their leaders (the most important: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavian, Antony), had got their pay directly from them. The army had been quasi private since this reform.

The problem has always been there, only it was not so noticeable until not so long ago, because the dichotomy of rationality and irrationality was not so noticeable as it increasingly is again today.

When by far the most rational culture entered the world stage and with its age of rationalism actually wanted to make it really clear that rationality can be stronger than irrationality, more and more became possible faster and faster. The Enlightenment seemed to make everything possible as far as rationality and its consequences were concerned. There was talk of „progress“. Philosophically speaking, the Enlightenment was a „philosophy of dawn“. After the Enlightenment, the „philosophy of the dusk“ slowly returned. It asserted itself first slowly, then ever faster becoming, thus with exponential increase. Although the Enlightenment has still not completely disappeared, the remnants of it that are still there are becoming weaker and weaker. The sun no longer shines as brightly.

You are talking like a „philosopher of the dawn“. The dawn promises the day, the brightness, the sunlight.

I am basically a „philosopher of dawn“ too, but I also know the „philosophical dusk“. I have always had a sense of the „philosophy of dusk“ as well, but most of my life I have been involved with enlightenment. You could perhaps say that I have invested in the „dawn“ on the one hand for private reasons and for professional reasons, and on the other hand in the „dusk“ for only private reasons. I have always been interested in both sides, but basically I am also more of an enlightener.

Every individual has an immune system - the human one is being trampled on right now - and in my opinion, a community also has an immune system (cf. „herd immunity“), but it must be constantly maintained and strengthened in order to be able to react appropriately to the challenges and dangers at any time.

An „immunity doctor“, whom one sometimes wishes for, would not have an easy time with me, because I know that corruption is now at home everywhere, even in every private space. Now, when the rulers, thanks to the technology that the technicians put at their disposal, make more and more plans, mixing the rational and the irrational, the result is almost always an irrational one. This is largely due to their irrational ideas, desires and goals and also to the fact that these are mixed with rational considerations, not in such a way that they are controlled, i.e. integrated like the irrational numbers together with the rational numbers into the set of real numbers, but in such a way that the irrational takes over rather quickly. There are enough examples from history for this. Rulers are also only humans, and the irrational is almost always stronger than the rational. Being rational also means fighting against irrationality, and since irrationality is always already there, this fight against it can also consist of integrating it in order to be able to control it more effectively. - Hence this thread, hence the question in the title of this thread.

If people want to have immunity from rationality in order to protect their own irrationality, then it is up to the community to not allow that to happen if that community is committed to rationality. It is similar to loyalty or solidarity (not meant communistically) in a community, which is always also undermined by simply taking advantage of it. By this I mean what is known in history and economics as the „tragedy of the commons“. Someone can refuse loyalty and solidarity to a community for perfectly rational reasons. However, the motives and the goals in doing so are often irrational nonetheless. That is why it is important to be clear in advance whether and how to deal with undermining. After all, irrationality always finds its way. In fact, you quickly end up with a dictatorship.

In any case, I believe that we are heading toward something similar to what the ancient Romans did at the time of their civil wars, when in the end there was no alternative but to bury the republic and impose something new, a mixture of republic and monarchy - the principate. Rome had to expand - „expansion is everything“ (Cecil Rhodes) - and therefore it had no other choice if it did not want to perish immediately. Those who renounces the necessary expansion are lost. In other words: Either Rome should not have begun with the expansion at all and would have remained small and probably at some time be conquered by a stronger power, or it would have have begun with the expansion and probably at some time gone down as an overstretched and therefore collapsed empire conquered by a stronger power.

After you recommended the Mithus book to me, I started reading also some posts about „Rational Harmony“. In one I read (I don't remember the exact wording) that according to James the substructure (the fundamental constitution) must be exactly right to avoid even the slightest error (as in all governments) corruption (he called it „cancer“), and that James' efforts to create such a constitution is said to have resulted in a „Constitution of Rational Harmony“.

People understand „harmony“ as something that is emotional at first. And in fact: Harmony has a lot to do with emotions, with feelings, feelings are considered irrational. Also James would probably not deny this, but probably also say that with his concept of „rational harmony“ harmony is also to be produced by rationality, and this in turn can be understood as an attempt to get something irrational rationally under control - just as I already said in my opening post.

What I am claiming now, and what I also have said in my opening post, is the fact that the irrational goes beyond, under and next to the rational, almost, but not really completely, surrounding it. For: if the irrational would completely surround the rational, then the rational would be a subset of the irrational (as if the rational and irrational numbers were a subset of the irrational numbers). But it is not like that.

And you respectively James try to make the rational (logical) as big as possible, that the irrational (alogical) remains as small as possible. This experiment has been first attempted on a huge scale by none other than Hegel.

1499) Great Again, 29.05.2021, 01:06, 01:14; Otto, 29.05.2021, 02:09; Great Again, 29.05.2021, 23:36, 23:38 (8416-8420)

Hunger is not necessarily a purely irrational matter, but even less is hunger a purely rational matter. The irrational part of hunger is quite high. You will notice that at the latest when you will have been hungry for a very long time.

The point here is also not to say that something is either exclusively rational or exclusively irrational; that's often not how it is, as my illustration also shows.

If we really want to understand and describe the rational and the irrational and their relations, then we also must take into account that there is an intersection between the two (cf. figure).

So when I say that „people understand »harmony« as something that is emotional at first“ and that „feelings are considered irrational“ (**|**), then I am referring to what the people consider feelings are, and they are not always but also not seldom right.

If I may guess:

Magnus Anderson and Obsrvr could be sock-puppets of James S. Saint.

Magnus functions as a provocative questioner and moralizer, Obsrvr functions as an admirer and deputy („on earth“) of James S. Saint („in heaven“).

But please note that this is not an assertion, but a guess.

We are in disagreement. But that is not a bad thing.

In my last post, I have (1.) not spoken of rational and irrational numbers, but of the rational and irrational in general, in reality, (2.) already pointed out several times that we have to separate the mathematical and thus the theoretical realm on the one hand and the practical or real realm on the other hand (we also do not say that mathematics and biology are the same thing), (3.) left the intersection of the rational and the irrational unnamed for very certain cases.

Not all poems are directly accessible to rationality, some not at all. But there are ways of hermeneutics, of understanding, which can lead to them becoming rationally accessible. But there can remain an realm that can not yet be assigned to the realm of the irrational and also not yet to the realm of the rational. This assignment is made by the rational, and sometimes it succeeds in taking something away from the realm of the irrational, i.e. in enlarging the realm of the rational (in other words: something was understood), but sometimes it does not succeed. And this realm, which can be assigned not yet to the irrational and not yet to the rational realm, that is the intersection of the rational and the irrational.

What about the situations?

Someone killed his wife out of hunger or out of the „set of all hunger feelings“.
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

The whole world is not only rational, the wohole world is irrational and rational and some or many things can not (yet) put in one of the two realms, because it is not (yet) decidable, where to put it. Some may be rational, some not, but then - later - they are just the other way around. You have to wait. The capability of waiting has gone lost. What you can't decide at the moment, decide it later. The intersection is a good thing for those who can (still) wait.

What is harmony?
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

What is „rational harmony“ for Trump?
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

What is „rational harmony“ for Biden?
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

What is „rational harmony“ for a 10 years old child?
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

God?
- Rational?
- Irrational?
- Not (yet) decidable?

The not (yet) decidable belongs to the intersection.

We do not know who possesses the absolute truth - in former times this possession was reserved to God. And today? To the mass media! To the „man“ (Heidegger), i.e. to the inauthenticity!

Instinct, intuition, feeling, love and much more - all either rational or irrational?

No inability of people in the assignment to the rational and irrational?

Is this inability of assignment rational or irrational?

•

We are all Gods?

1500) Great Again, 30.05.2021, 01:43, 01:45, 23:34, 23:42, 23:48; Kultur, 30.05.2021, 23:54, 23:55, 23:58 (8421-8428)

My diagram and words (**|**|**|**|**|**) suggest that there are things that are both rational and irrational in the sense that they cannot yet be assigned otherwise, but must be one of the two. I.e.: They are not otherwise assignable (as I have said several times). They belong to the (set of) reality, like the rational and the irrational, and they will also - sooner or later - find their place exactly in one of the two, but cannot do it now.

The intersection is something like a transit camp, because everything is in motion, is historical, is dynamic, because something always comes in and comes out. So the intersection must remain.

Great Again wrote:

„Instinct, intuition, feeling, love and much more - all either rational or irrational?

No inability of people in the assignment to the rational and irrational?

Is this inability of assignment rational or irrational?

•

We are all Gods?“ ** **

No misinterpreted rationality?
No misinterpreted irrationality?

What about the recognized (objectum)?
What about the to-be-recognized (objiciendum)?
What about the (still) unrecognized (transobjective)?
What about the unrecognizable (transintelligible)?

No transcendence?
No transcendentality (in the sense of Kant's transcendental philosophy)?
No being-in (in the sense of Heidegger's existential philosophy)?
No being-in-the-world (in the sense of Heidegger's existential philosophy)?

The interscetion is a dynamic one. It is historical. There is motion in it.

Especially for you, Magnus, I have drawn the arrows, indicating the movement, in the diagram. See:

Who denies the history and the movement of the world and therefore also within the logic, who doesn't want to perceive that not always everything can be assigned only as either rational or as irrational, that one is obviously not of this world.

It is a fact that about many things it cannot be said exactly whether they are rational or irrational despite the fact that these things belong to something that can be assigned to either the rational or the irrational. Many things can only be evaluated as either rational or irrational in retrospect. You have brought an example yourself: „The set of all hunger feelings“. The term „hunger feelings“ means two things: hunger and feelings. What are feelings? Something rational or irrational? And: Which feelings? 100%?

Who decides what is rational and what is irrational? This „who“ are humans, and humans are only rational to a certain extent, irrational to another (far greater) extent. How this is distributed is not known exactly.

Homo sapiens is rational according to those people who have decided that Homo sapiens is rational (=> sapiens). The statements of those who have decided that homo sapiens is rational already show that not everything about this species is rational . And not all individuals of this species are rational in equal shares.

Is your stomach rational?
Yes? To what percentage?
No? To what percentage?

And hunger?

Do you decide on this alone?

Do you have much contact with the „I Love Philosophy“ forum?

I have read som posts of this poster.

And I must say that on average you have to shake your head after every third post at the latest.

==>