tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150536631000747290.post2635341290840492246..comments2016-10-14T23:01:20.692-07:00Comments on The 8 Gates of Time: A New Mode of UnderstandingSiriusly marZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15357084537877723104noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150536631000747290.post-30395146662697270172009-12-07T00:41:46.644-08:002009-12-07T00:41:46.644-08:00Very perceptive dude. Nice layout of stated thoug...Very perceptive dude. Nice layout of stated thoughts too. Let me expand the blog so you can see that we mostly agree. Thanks bro and keep reading!Siriusly marZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357084537877723104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150536631000747290.post-67921930132992093892009-12-02T22:16:09.360-08:002009-12-02T22:16:09.360-08:00Given the author's apparent dislike of logic a...Given the author's apparent dislike of logic as a method of understanding, the structure of this passage is surprisingly logical.<br />The passage begins much like a scientific experiment does, with an observation: 1) Conscious beings use rational thought as a method for understanding life. I believe this is an axiomatic principle, and I agree with the observation. Human beings attempt to understand the universe through the use of reason.<br /><br />I have reduced the argument formulaically, at least to see if I understand it:<br /><br />Premises<br /><br />1) Conscious beings use rational thought as a method for understanding life. <br /><br />2) This method is limited in its ability to impart life understanding. <br /><br />3) Because of its limitations, this method has a "knack" for leading one to feel "frustrated" and "empty".<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />4) Rational thought is no longer satisfactory as a method for understanding life.<br /><br />I find the argument persuasive, but I think more explanation is needed. For example, in (2), the author argues the use of rational thought is limited in its ability to impart life understanding. He claims rational thought is based on abstractions, and inherently disconnected from reality. I would ask; how does rational thought’s reliance on abstractions limit its ability to impart an understanding?<br /><br />In premise (3) the author claims using logic to understand one’s life will tend to lead one to feel frustrated and empty, but is this really the case? Understanding is a pleasurable feeling, and logic CAN help us to reach understanding. A human being can derive joy from using logic, like a child solving a math problem for the first time, or a chess player finding a logical move. I would argue that the use of logic does not always lead to emptiness and frustration.<br /><br />The author however, says that the use of logic to understand life leads one to feel empty and frustrated. I think what he’s basically saying is that life cannot be reduced to mathematical formulations or reasons. It is not a causal chain reducible to action and reaction, and conceivable in one great equation. Inherent in the nature of the universe is an element of unpredictability, and it is this element which resists human beings’ attempt to understand life through reason. Life’s chaotic half will not yield to Reason’s inquiries.<br /><br />The author does not conclude that rational thought should be abandoned, but only that it is no longer a satisfactory method for understanding life. Rather than offer a solution, or propose a more definite conclusion, the author concludes that what is necessary is the recognition of rational thought as a kind of false prophet. Reason only appears to lead one to truth. He holds any investigation of life’s meaning using reason is a fool’s errand.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09703692232352457252noreply@blogger.com