The attacks against philosopher who argue rationally are simply absurd. The one that gets me the most, though, is Wittgenstein. Such BRILLIANT leaps forward in logic, in categorization, on the nature of dialectics and language, all stemming from rational argumentation. And yet, right there in the Blue Book, he claims that philosophers aren't supposed to be rational in the mathematical sense. Well how in the hell else are you supposed to argue a philosophy?
You can't. The proof lies in the fact that a circular reasoning (which is rationally invalid) must be entered in order to defend any non-rational system of philosophy. Fuck, we have to enter into circular reasoning to even discuss the EXISTENCE of non-rational philosophy.
Perhaps I've simply spent too much time deep inside the inner workings of numbers and logic and real theories. Perhaps I am biased. But give to me any argument in favor of non-rational philosophy, and I'll defeat it--rationally. To defend non-rational philosophy, one must be irrational. By definition, if one is irrational, the defense is invalid. If you support non-rational philosophy via reason, you enter into philosophical contradiction--again invalid.
So fuck you Descartes.








You'd better call me soon. >__<
--
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men!"
I got here by clicking the Random Deviant button. Enjoy dA.
Cheers.
--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
--
[link]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men!"
-Willy Wonka
Solve lora infernis et futue te ipsum.
--
[link]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men!"
-Willy Wonka
--
Prints | Gallery | Profile
--
>> Solve lora infernis et futue te ipsum <<
------------------------------------------------
>> "If heaven I cannot bend, then Hell I will stir." <<
------------------------------------------------
--
Prints | Gallery | Profile
Previous Page12345...Next Page