RE: Higher Order Thinking: An Introduction
Philosophy and critical thinking are about open (as in openminded!) inquiry into what you don't already know.
As I told you, knowing the truth disqualifies one from a) understanding what philosophy is about, and b) understanding anything that doesn't accord with your already-beliefs.
"how is irrationality possible?"
lol People don't understand the first thing to know about things: How does one know what's what?
E.G. Your question: To what definition of rationality does it refer?
Nobody understands the true or right definition of that!!!
Asking that question demonstrates that you presume that you (or someone) can know what 'rationality' is; to me that's not very rational.
Part of wisdom is understanding the limits of what humans can possibly understand.
Knowing the truth prevents that.
Knowing the truth means being stuck in a narrow frame with no opening for critical (rational) inquiry
into anything different - how rational is that?
If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational."
But there is an important distinction to make here, namely: you can know what truth is even while lacking an exhaustive understanding of that truth; so knowing what the truth is does not necessarily stop open inquiry. Certainly this is true with respect to God, who is (aside from revelation) infinitely beyond anything we can think, say, or write. Your point about the limits of human understanding is thus well taken.
In fact, that is what attracts me to the religious mindset! Sincere religion makes one alive to the mystery of things, keeping in check mankind's tendency to "know it all."
If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational."
lol
You might be starting to get the idea, ax.
Opinions aren't true, no matter how hard we might want them to be.
There are many different ways to describe a concept, many shades of meaning, none of which is absolutely true. We each have general (often quite vague) ideas about what things mean.
Otherwise we couldn't converse.
In formal language there are no vague ideas. In natural tongues practically everything is vague. That's why philosophy and empirical science are useful, because they're our only tools for cutting through the crap.
you can know what truth is even while lacking an exhaustive understanding of that truth; so knowing what the truth is does not necessarily stop open inquiry...Your point about the limits of human understanding is thus well taken.
Knowing what 'truth' is (i.e . correspondence) is easy. Knowing that we don't know the certain truth about things makes open inquiry possible.
In fact, that is what attracts me to the religious mindset! Sincere religion makes one alive to the mystery of things, keeping in check mankind's tendency to "know it all."
To me, the Absolute must remain mysterious; I trust in Being and I live in mystery. To me talking about the unknowable distracts people from things that are more important than discussing the nature of deities. That's why I emphasize the importance of understanding the limits of human understanding.
If you want to cut the crap, learn philosophy!
We both have a sense for what is rational (and what is not), even if we lack a formal definition of rationality. Mathematics is much larger than formal language, which is what Gödel proved. There are certainly obscurities in mathematics.
I heartily disagree with your campaign against rationality and truth. By the way, what I have proposed as truth (which, as I said, may not be interesting to you) has nothing to do with correspondence or coherence; it is transcendent in the sense that it goes beyond methods used in science or philosophy.
When the Lord told Pilate he was the truth, Pilate responded philosophically, "What is truth?" You are in Pilate's camp, I suppose. But the philosophical denial of truth is just one way of disguising the Tyranny of Relativism, which always results in the use of force over reason (because it denies reason its critical role).
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2500)
I don't campaign against rationality; you're mistaken about that.
I'm not in Pilate's camp.
I campaign against bullshit asserted by people who don't understand what's what.