Since when is love a reasoned conclusion? This is not a sound example.
It isn't. And that was my very point. We are able to gain knowledge of truth, without reliance on the analytic reasoning mind. That was an example of one instance of this, which is frankly more indicitive of how humans operate than relying on reason. Reason only comes in when we occasionally may need to course correct, and that is only brought online because we experience pain or discomfort in the non-rational domains.
How so? In my experience critical thinking is a set of rules that a disciplined mind uses via facts and reliable evidence to sound conclusions.
While this is true, and it has its value, it's a bit of double-edged sword. We need to set the rules in order to determine what will work within that set of predefined parameters. But the downside of that is this. That predefined set of parameters, or the "set of rules", in fact my impose an artificial and undue boundary which will then limit what we believe is possible.
Psychologically, if we tell ourselves something cannot be done, then we will in fact not be able to do that thing because don't open ourselves to the possibility of it happening. We limit ourselves by belief, and we can also exceed those limits by belief, or in this case "faith". "They say it can't be done, but I "feel" in my soul I can do it". That's faith.
This is in fact a very real and recognized phenomena, but of course this doesn't mean you can suddenly belief yourself into doing something you physically cannot, such as flapping your arms and flying up into the air like a bird. But I am not talking extremes like this. I am saying that the mind, or our reason, can also reason us into failure. "It's not possible for me to be anything better than this". Is reason, always reasonable?
I literally never think of limitations in my thinking process. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
That's the hidden enemy. You don't realize it's there by default. We generally don't recognize the eyes we look through as part of how we see. If we did recognize them, those inherent limitations that result happen because of the nature of how logic and reason need place restrictions on possibility, in order to function. If you could see that, then you'd be seeing what I am seeing.
This is absurd. If an athlete shows promise they will likely have the natural ability that is the FACT of their biology.
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, if we are working off of certain assumptions of what is possible or not, those assumptions may in fact be in error. Plus, we can also change our biology. We can literally reprogram ourselves. You are familiar with neuroplasticity, for example? Why are we assume a static nature to our biology here? If we simply accept those assumptions, such as the static nature of reality, as FACT based upon whatever the conventional wisdom of the day is, as you put it, then in fact you will create a self-fulfilled prophecy. You create a self-sustaining feedback loop, where self-fulfilled prophecy, confirms that initial assumption as FACT, and then that becomes 'the truth', as it were to us.
Tests can reveal if they have promise, and these tests rely on databases, and these are built on data from other athletes, both good and bad. This is all a scientific process.
And this is one of the downsides of the scientific process. Again though, I am not talking about wild extremes, such as believing the human can fly through the air with nothing but their current biological bodies, like a bird with feathers and hollow bones. I am talking about the more subtle limits placed upon our Freedom, by the limitations imposed by the rational mind processes. If we always believed we 'can't' because our tools of the day say that we can't, where would be historically speaking?
You don't think it ironic that you are trying to argue that humans aren't rational? Argument is a rational process.
I am not arguing that humans don't have rationality as a tool. I am arguing that the majority of how we function however on a daily basis, is not by utilizing that tool actively. My argument is that we use it to problem solve and course correct occasionally, but it is not the apparatus through which we act for the majority of how we function.
Rationality is something that we have to actively bring online. And even then, it never functions without influence of the non-rational aspects of our being.
I suggest you read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence. He outlines how the human brain evolved to reason but still has a very active emotion center, and without mental discipline we default to acting and reacting like other animals. It is certain skills of mind that help humans behave rationally versus impulsively and irrationally.
I have no problem with any of this of course. I agree that emotional intelligence is developed to help restructure our natural habits formed through simply instincts and impulses. I think rather though it has more to do with being able to see ourselves objectively through a matter of more highly evolved perspectives, rather than simply a matter of reason. If one's perspective is trapped into a particular shape, then no matter how intelligent and reasoned you may be, you simply don't have the proper distance outside of that subjectivity. You may have a perfectly reasonable logic about something, but it is all operating from within that framework itself.
This is where transcending reason comes in. It grants you a new awareness or perspective, with which then to use reason to help figure things out with that new perspective. There is a saying I heard that makes perfect sense to me. "The subject of one level, becomes the object of the subject of the next level". That shift in levels does not come by reasoning your way to them. It's growth. That's a natural, non-rational process. Think of saying to your bones, "grow!", and trying to reason them to take a new configuration. That doesn't work. But once they have grown of their own accord, then you are now taller and can see naturally from a new higher perspective.
I'm trying to put reason and intelligence into a proper "perspective' here.
Logic is a set of rules, and critical thinking is a learned and practiced skill.
Yes, all operating within that set of defined rules. But what if you change the rules?
One reason many people struggle in life and living in balance is because they live impulsively and without adequate maturity.
I agree. There is the prerational mode of functioning in life, with is all driven by impulse and emotion. There is the rational mode where reason helps to guide and reign in impulse and emotion dominating everything. And there is the transrational mode, where reason is recognized as not the all-powerful Light of the World it tends to see itself as, but as inherently limited, despite its genuine power to reign in the lower levels. In the transrational, reason is brought forward and integrated, but tempered in its expectation to bring us to the next levels of awareness.
This is where intuition and sensitivity and insight come online more, and reason serves as an certain checksum, to help keep us grounded, without domination as "The Way, the Truth, and the Life", deciding all things through itself in a self-referential feedback loop, overlooking that is itself has inherent limitations.
I don't see many people who can reason well. One part of Emotional Intelligence is being able to monitor emotions and being able to learn how to reason so the person can make responsible decisions in life.
I agree. They need to move from the prerational to the rational. This is a step forward. But it not the final step forward by any means.
In what way is faith a better option than reasoning if you need to make important decisions?
If we reject this mistaken and limited idea of faith as "bad reasoning", and instead understand it in terms of an intuition or sense of draw to what is not apparent to the mind's reason, yet is felt as deeply true nonetheless, then the answer should be obvious. Yes, sometimes we need to go with what our guts tells us, even though rationally we might box ourselves into a corner of inaction.
Reason can easily be a tool of fear too, you know? Rationalizing with logic why not to do something we fear. There needs to be more than just reason, in order for reason to sometimes see itself.
If you have reasoning skill, why need faith? It's like you have to get to work 8 miles away and it's raining, do you take the car or a skateboard?
It's too easy to find extreme examples. But extreme examples are not good examples of what reality actually looks like. It's the 99.8% of everything in between that is more subtle and nuanced that I am talking about.
But obviously, if you're goal is to get to work quickly and avoid getting wet, the car is the better choice. But what if your goal is to train to use a skateboard in all weather conditions, and the time of getting to work is flexible for you? Well, then the skateboard is the obvious choice.
It's all relative. Truth is in fact largely relative.
How does this "sense" get developed, and is reliable? Explain, and use facts.
Internal awareness practices, such as meditation. Is it reliable? Yes. You can train that as much as you can train anything else. But if your rationality says "Don't trust it!!!!", then this is prime example of where you will in fact never be able to develop it, based solely on reason and logic with the "set rules" you have established for it to operate within. "Faith is bad", and therefore, that is all you can see and all you can reason.
I'll probably add some more thoughts later to the rest of your posts as time permits.
