/lit/ - Literature

>>11883220
>I'd be surprised if either of you can come up with an actual non-trivial definition not of the concept at the core of your disagreement, i.e. reason/rationality

a definition of reason and rationality? i don't even know if i can. reason to me just means sanity among or between human beings. philosophical charity. the capacity to tolerate ambiguity in abstraction. how about, 'a conspicuous and consistence absence of barbarism, ignorance, brutality, violence and superstition?'

there are things that confucius would have said ultimately couldn't be defined. and it wasn't, i think, because they were undefinable or to be incorrigibly nit-picky or obtuse, but because they got in the way of a more interesting conversation about what actually mattered, which was enlightenment, compassion, and humanity. and one of the reasons i like confucius is because this is a rather non-postmodern approach to these things, where two parties have their exchange on a mutually unstable ground.

so yeah. i don't know if i can offer a definition of those terms. are they really required? are we really going to disagree that nazism was both rational in its implementation and irrational in its romanticism? they were. fascism is aestheticized politics and communism is politicized aesthetics. what's the problem here?

>>11883513
based GK