• Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    vor 16 Stunden

    He should read some Kant and Hume.

    Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.

    Reason is and ought only to be a slave to the passions

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      vor 16 Stunden

      He may have read both - apparently he’s very well read. My guess is he would disagree with Hume on that point, but I don’t know the guy.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        vor 16 Stunden

        Well Hume was right. Reason can’t derive axioms. It can’t create purpose from nothing. It can’t solve the is-ought problem. Passion can. Passion can say “the world should be like this. Why? Because I want it to be”. Reason can’t do that. And thus, reason should exist only to serve passion.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          vor 29 Minuten

          I feel like I’m learning a decent amount from this thread. I definitely consider myself a (overly) rational person. I haven’t really thought about it before, but obviously I’ve still got some passions driving things.

          If I was to put it into words, I’d probably say I’m passionate about learning how things work and finding elegant simple solutions to problems. Which is generally tied to my selfish goal of having more free time to just experience the world without responsibilities.

          Thanks for inspiring me to think about this, maybe I should go read some more philosophy…

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            vor 24 Minuten

            Something I’ve come to realize recently is that everyone has selfish motivations, some people are just a lot more careful about how those motivations effect others. Personally I worry quite a bit about how I might be inconveniencing others with my actions, and tend to stay rather isolated as a result.

        • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          vor 14 Stunden

          OTOH reason has kept a roof over my head when my passion would have had me do Arduino projects or write D&D campaigns instead of working. Maybe Hume’s gf had a job.

            • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              vor 13 Stunden

              No, the word “dispassionate” perfectly describes when I’m forced to work on necessities instead of things I love.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            vor 13 Stunden

            Why should you have a roof over your head? If emotions are irrelevant, what’s the difference between that and being homeless?

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              vor 10 Stunden

              Survival. The emotions are ultimately just crude tools the brain and body have for promoting the survival of the person.

              Their crudeness is probably best illustrated with phobias.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                vor 8 Stunden

                If emotions are irrelevant, why survive? Why not lie down and die? You say it’s not your fear of death or your love of life. Is it some form of worship of the purpose evolution has given you? That sounds emotional to drag.

                • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  vor 8 Stunden

                  I didn’t say they were irrelevant, I said they’re tools of survival. They’re obviously useful. People without any emotions at all just sit there with what looks like a catatonic state.

                  But being a slave to your emotions is nothing to aspire to. Far better to pick the emotional states you want to have. For me it’s enjoying deep focus on a task, having a lively conversation, sharing a great meal, laughing at a great joke, or cheering on a great play in sports.

                  Being a slave to your emotions is like being a ship tossed about on stormy seas. Emotional regulation is a skill that must be learned like any other. We’re supposed to teach it to young children, though increasingly I find myself meeting adults who don’t even have the basics down. People screaming at each other like angry birds!

                  The tougher one of course is learning how to overcome depression. That may need different strategies for different people. Mindfulness works for me but maybe not for everyone.

                  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    vor 8 Stunden

                    No, you’re describing a situation where the passions are in charge, and reason is helping the passions feel good.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      vor 15 Stunden

      I don’t think they’d find that very insightful.

      It’s plain hedonism. I’m sure they’re familiar with the idea.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          vor 13 Stunden

          Bentham developed hedonistic calculus. The foundation is a multivariate ethical vector space. He rationalized hedonism to the extreme. The passions are explicitly tempered for a calculated greater good.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              vor 12 Stunden

              No? Once reason restricts passion, the hierarchy collapses. An action that causes yourself mild pain, but pleasure of greater extent to others, is preferable to an action that causes many others pain even if it gives you pleasure personally. Reason demands you restrain yourself from the passions that would harm others. That’s not unilateral fealty. Axioms must be assumed, but the most powerful systems assume as few as possible, and leave most of the legwork to reason.