/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20782238]

Any lit on irrational thought?
Western civilization is defined by being "rational" at all times about decisions and such.
But I've never seen anything that speaks for irrational thought, or anything outside of rational thinking

[Anonymous No.20782280]

>>20782238
Freud

[Anonymous No.20782290]

>>20782238
The Golden Bough and The Myth of the Eternal Return

[Anonymous No.20782299]

>>20782238
I thought the entire Romantic movement was based on this. Might want to check that out: the entire Romantic movement.

[Anonymous No.20782323]

>>20782238
There's a difference between being a full-blown irrationalist and believing that there are things outside of rational thinking.

Regarding the latter, there's plenty of books that speak about the limits of rational thought and the necessity to assent to beliefs that lie outside what reason can understand or demonstrate, just look at the rich theological traditions of the major religions, or more modern thinkers such as Kant or Kierkegaard.

Now, if what you're really looking for are actual defenses of irrationality, I personally don't know of one. I mean, what would a book like that even look like? To defend a position, one must give reasons for it, but an irrationalist, by definition, is not commited to giving any reasons for anything. The best thing I have about how an hypothetical irrationalist position could be inmune to any rational attacks is this video: https://youtu.be/9cexrECXKUI

[Anonymous No.20782367]

>>20782238
literally romanticism

[Anonymous No.20782700]

A lot of these promote an openness to the irrational and unconscious influences in the self. I don’t know if any would say that the irrational is better than rational, but they see that the unconscious can benefit consciousness if a productive relationship is set up between the two of them. It’s possible that this kind of symbiotic relationship doesn’t become more efficient when we call one of them, the one related to instinct, the unconscious, the irrational, and nature, the Devil and place it in an antagonistic relationship with rational thought. Especially when that which we put in the place of rational thought was actually an orthodoxy that restricts the ability of reason to function. When the ego is too defined by its opinions, it is more difficult for unconscious influences to provide nourishment to the individuation process. If irrational instincts are too repressed/suppressed, reason’s capacity to help us grow can be diminished.

[Anonymous No.20782706]

>>20782238
Modernity is irrational.

[Anonymous No.20782719]

There is a difference between irrational and arational.
Irrational is that which contradicts rational thought.
Arational is above or prior to rationality. It does not contradict rationality. It transcends it. It is more fundamental than rationality.

[Anonymous No.20782727]

>>20782238
Nietzsche
>>20782706
No

[Anonymous No.20782748]

>>20782719
Nothing trascends rationality, seethe more

[Anonymous No.20782787]

>>20782748
Not true! In fact, the statement that you just made is a metaphysical claim, which is above and prior to rationality.

[Anonymous No.20782792]

>>20782238
Wittgenstein, The Bible, Hamann
https://youtu.be/jiegso1JQWw

[Anonymous No.20782800]

>>20782238
While not directly being against rationality itself, I would say Hume is a good philosopher to read for a view which is against the idea of a rational actor. Ultimately this leads to his more skeptic views, like that casuality is an illusion. To Hume, all views of causality are mere correlations that can't be trusted. It is our assumption that we are rational beings which leads to the casuality we all presuppose. It is bullshit but kind of fun anyway lol

[Anonymous No.20782802]

>>20782787
That is a rational argument, seethe

[Anonymous No.20782827]

>>20782802
You cannot justify rationality through rational thought itself!
That is like thinking the scientific method can prove its own validity scientifically (another fallacy).
Rationality and the scientific method are both valid, but NOT self-validating! They rest on more fundamental presuppositions!

[Anonymous No.20782850]

>>20782827
Still a rational argument, seethe

[Anonymous No.20782859]

>>20782850
Justify rationality using only rational thought.

[Anonymous No.20782868]

>>20782367
I can argue for romanticism rationally. If it's argued for each case of "irrational" romanticism I engage in sits in a rational context.

[Anonymous No.20782872]

>>20782238
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bahnsen, Mainlander, Weininger, Michelstaedter, von Hartmann, Vilfredo Pareto

I think /lit/zens would like Pareto, people barely talk about him

[Anonymous No.20782875]

>>20782859
No need, you are being rational

[Anonymous No.20782882]

Can we define irrational thought?
Just ideas without any logical reasoning?

>the sky is blue because of light reflections
Vs
>the sky is blue because I said so
If the second statement is irrational, why would you want to think like that. It seems brain dead.

[Anonymous No.20782886]

>>20782868
That is because nothing is above rationality, it doesn't mean romanticism is rational

[Anonymous No.20782895]

>>20782882
Again, because nothing is above rationality. In any case "the sky is blue because I said so" can be rational.

[Anonymous No.20782904]

>>20782886
God is. In fact our actions don't have any basis in logic. People will what they desire

[Anonymous No.20783004]

>>20782904
This desu!

[Anonymous No.20783035]

>>20782904
A truly irrational comment, thank you, anon, for such a garbage opinion.
You win.

[Anonymous No.20783063]

>>20783035
irrational != arational

[Anonymous No.20783103]

>>20783063
Yes! Keep using made up concepts with bad spelling

[Anonymous No.20783104]

>>20782886
>it doesn't mean romanticism is rational
If I argue for it rationally and then act that out as I rationally explained then what's irrational about it?

[Anonymous No.20783119]

>>20783104
The ideas of romanticists are irrational, in that they themselves believe in irrationality, how you justify or account for that is a different thing

[Anonymous No.20783121]

>>20783103
You can't stop me.

[Anonymous No.20783125]

>>20783121
You're right

[Anonymous No.20783131]

>>20782882
Trying to find definitions that reflect the schools of thought I like (Plato, Jung, Taoism, Hinduism) and my experiences: there is the conscious mind, the personal unconscious, and the unconscious. The conscious mind is ordered by our attempt to be rational. It is a little like the left hemispheres of our brains in that it uses words to reason. The personal unconscious is composed of all of the thought experiences that have not been integrated into the conscious mind by word-based conceptualization. If one’s word-based understanding does not accord with reason itself, there is a likelihood that the person’s experiences and instincts will not be able to be integrated into the word-based worldview, so this thought stuff is repressed beneath the horizon of our word-based consciousness and is tossed into the personal unconscious where it creates dissonance. It’s like oil companies getting mad at drivers for producing greenhouse gasses. Repression of the instinctual self makes the personal unconscious unhealthy and problematic. It’s like saying that a kid is the deranged because he is desperately begging for food and he is not healthy, when the people saying he is deranged aren’t letting him eat, in that the people encouraging the repression of instinct are the ones making the personal unconscious and the instincts more problematic to the economy of the soul.

[Anonymous No.20783132]

>>20783125
But I can stop myself

[Anonymous No.20783133]

>>20783125
Gay rationalist vs CHAD MYSTIC!!!

[Anonymous No.20783150]

>>20783133
You truly are irrational, I mean to think ANYBODY could have such a GARBAGE take that is so COMPLETELY WRONG that it challenges the very concept of rationality, my envy for you knows no bounds

[Anonymous No.20783160]

>>20783150
cuck

[Anonymous No.20783165]

>>20783119
If we frame our nation in a romantic light because our nation will be stronger and my selfish interests served, where's the "irrationality"? They rejected the traditions associated with rationality but those traditions weren't necessarily more rational in terms of being coherently thought out based on pure logic and observations or whatever.

[Anonymous No.20783168]

>>20783160
>t. Mystic

[Anonymous No.20783173]

>>20783165
I literally don't know what you are talking about, I think you are thinking nationalism, not romanticism, chud.

[Anonymous No.20783188]

>>20783173
It's an example of applied romanticism. It was the main contribution from the romantic period at least to my local history.

[Anonymous No.20783204]

>>20783188
Yes but it isn't the romantic movement.
I get what you are saying, however appropiating the aesthetic of irrationality just to defend a rational argument that is just incorrect, is pretty gay in my opinion

[Anonymous No.20783246]

>>20783204
>however appropiating the aesthetic of irrationality just to defend a rational argument that is just incorrect, is pretty gay in my opinion
This statement is incredibly retarded and gay on more levels than are words in the post.

[Anonymous No.20784923]

>>20782280
How would he help?

[Anonymous No.20785541]

>>20782238
Read Ellul.

[Jeo No.20785549]

Define define.

[Anonymous No.20786697]

Nietzsche, Klages, Bataille, Vuarnet

[Anonymous No.20786710]

>>20782280
fpbp. and by proxy, Jung.