2 ms·

You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument

by NHQ 3y ago

You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs. Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process. Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning. Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification. It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.

NHQ 3y ago
For the philosophers, this is why the pushers of rationalism thrust Kant to the fore, he wrote that reason is insufficient. That may be true for some types of inward thinking like creativity and invention. The truth can never be invented though ergo reasoning is perfectly fine for the due process of uncovering the truth. Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably. This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context. As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization. Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.

by NHQ 3y ago

NHQ 3y ago

For the philosophers, this is why the pushers of rationalism thrust Kant to the fore, he wrote that reason is insufficient. That may be true for some types of inward thinking like creativity and invention. The truth can never be invented though ergo reasoning is perfectly fine for the due process of uncovering the truth. Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably. This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context. As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization. Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.