I had logged off once for tonight, but I just found this and found it to be a fascinating exploration. I think that it gives a really unusual metaphorical slant to the whole question of logic, and other ways of seeing. I do believe that a lot of people wish to see brighter pictures, realism and even superrealism.

We could ask if too much light is leading to some kind of distortion of vision. The truth may be hidden in the shadows, so it may be that we need to go into the depths of the twilight to see beyond the intensity of the glare of the light. It could be that rather than looking for the light beyond Plato's cave, we need to look more into subtle shadows themselves, to uncover hidden gems of insight and wisdom. I wonder whether the twilight may reveal contemplation, as the hidden aspect beyond the light of logic.

I edited my first attempt, a little bit.

I think that it gives a really unusual metaphorical slant to the whole question of logic — Jack Cummins

Expose every belief to the light of reason, discourse, facts, scientific observations; question everything, be sceptical because this is the only chance at life you will ever get. — James Randi

If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold. — Louis D. Brandeis

Is the analogy still "unusual"?

the hidden aspect beyond the light of logic. — Jack Cummins

Irrationalism. Sorry for sounding like a broken record.

Recently, it dawned on me that [...] — TheMadFool

Definition of "dawn": become evident to the mind; be perceived or understood. "the awful truth was beginning to dawn on him".

Is there something going on here that we should be concerned about?

I will think about it in the light of day( and perhaps again in the twilight).

I will think about it in the light of day( and perhaps again in the twilight). — Jack Cummins

ok.

To sum it all up, do we need to let the night fall (turn off reason) in order to see the stars (the other facets of reality) and/or wait for the full brightness of day (reason in full bloom) to make progress in problem areas of humanity's knowledge database? — TheMadFool

The old rooster Freddy Zarathustra has something to crow at the twilit Moon:

HOW THE “TRUE WORLD” FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error:

1. The true world -- unattainable but for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)

3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolidation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian)

4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained, and being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning, The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism)

5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast: return of bon sens and cheer-fulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.
(Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.') — Twilight of the Idols

(Emphasis bolded is mine.)

:death: :flower:

So, the whole idea of philosophy is to dismiss the very question that birthed it? How fascinating! It's like reading a book in which the last sentence on the last page in the last chapter reads, "you should've never read this book!" I want to write such a book one day.

So, the whole idea of philosophy is to dismiss the very question that birthed it? — TheMadFool

Not quite. Wombs and tombs are dark places, Fool, and light (reasoning) waxes and wanes by moving between them. One pauses to philosophize at "noon: moment of the briefest shadow" and then carries further this promethean fire in order to make (reflect) a path (life) by walking (thinking) through the maze.

All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking. — Twilight of the Idols

Again ...

:death: :flower:

Not quite. Wombs and tombs are dark places, Fool, and light (reasoning) waxes and wanes by moving between them. One pauses to philosophize at "noon: moment of the briefest shadow" and then carries further this promethean fire in order to make (reflect) a path (life) by walking (thinking).
All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.
— Twilight of the Idols
Again ... — 180 Proof

As has become customary for you insofar as I'm concerned, you've blown my mind...again. Keep it coming, keep it coming!

What do you make of my rather dangerous and yet intriguing suggestion to "turn off" reason, dim the light as it were, in order that we may see other sources of illumination, other ways/techniques/methods of getting to the truth? This is old news of course - religion (faith: to believe sans proof) - but because religion has lost all credibility in some circles, we should explore other rationality-independent avenues to knowledge, assuming such exist. It would be a whole lot of fun, no?

@TheMadFool fairly recently watched Stephen Fry talk to Jordan Peterson about something like this. Fry’s point being that ‘Reason’ can often make one refuse to take the path towards the solution to a problem. What seems like the most irrational approach to a problem will often be ignored even if the results bear fruit.

What do you make of my rather dangerous and yet intriguing suggestion to "turn off" reason, dim the light as it were, in order that we may see other sources of illumination, other ways/techniques/methods of getting to the truth? — TheMadFool

I thought my quoting Freddy's "Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity" would make the point, at least for me, (history AND lived-experience show) that more light (reason), not less (faith? woo? instinct?), engenders philosophical understanding. "The truth"? As Freddy wrote "... a Fable: the history of an Error". :fire:

I thought my quoting Freddy's "Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity" would make the point that, for me, more light (reason) not less engenders philosophical understanding. "The truth"? As Freddy wrote "... a Fable: the history of an Error". — 180 Proof

:up: I won't pursue this matter further with you. You seem to have made up your mind and not without very good reasons for doing so. Thanks.

What seems like the most irrational approach to a problem will often be ignored even if the results bear fruit. — I like sushi

Not exactly the clip I would've liked but it's close enough so yeah!

I don't think I'm following the metaphor.

Or ,maybe I'm getting caught up in the metaphor.

***

I want to say that reason has limits, that philosophy necessitates reason, and so philosophy also has limits. However, I don't know that noting the limits of reason is really the same as twilight in your metaphor, because you seem to be indicating that there's something more to be known when there is no reason -- as if we must, in some sense, block out (or bracket?) reason to know whatever the night or dimmer stars represent in the metaphor.

But then is it really called knowing if it's unreasonable? Or something else?

Or, given that we're thinking about the subject at all, is the very thought really thinkable? Or are we just getting carried away with metaphors? After all, in Plato the light of reason doesn't bare any analogy to the sun, but is in relation to shadows that we perceive. We mistake the shadows for the forms, when the forms are actually behind the appearances, and when we turn to the light(do philosophy) we witness the forms. It's not an astronomical metaphor, as yours is.


What's your metaphor doing for you? What does it illuminate, or ask? What is the night, the small stars? Or is it all just a kind of something that you're not sure of?

But then is it really called knowing if it's unreasonable? Or something else? — Moliere

Believe you me, there are highly reputed philosophers, logicians who've already made the first tentative steps in the direction I'm suggesting (irrationalism, dialetheism, paraconsistent logic, to name a few) but these are simply variations of older systems and thus suffer from some of the same "drawbacks" that ultimately render them ineffective for tasks they were meant for - to broaden the scope of logic in order to tackle more complex problems. This would qualify as a paradoxical maneuver in my book - both increasing and simultaneously decreasing the illumination logic provides - in my analogy, this amounts to a cleverly adjusting the illumination of logic to just the right level such that both shadows and stars can be seen. A sensible strategem - play it safe, why reinvent the wheel.

A sensible strategem - play it safe, why reinvent the wheel. — TheMadFool

There are countless non/ir-rational paths that have been taken. Tell me where they've lead that the path of reason hasn't already passed by. Point out one of those dark paths that have gone farther / further than the lumen naturale. Isn't the goal to turn (metanoia) from the shadows on the wall and see that we can leave Plato's Cave (mystification) by following the sun (reasoning)?

What's your metaphor doing for you? What does it illuminate, or ask? What is the night, the small stars? Or is it all just a kind of something that you're not sure of? — Moliere

Yes ...

It's the height of the gardening season here. I get up around 4.30 in the morning (as soon as it is bright enough to see) and start working in the garden and work until about 9 AM. Then, during the day, it's too hot for gardening. Late in the afternoon, around 5 and later, once the shadows start to fall, I start working again and so until 8.30 PM, when it's too dark to see.

Taking this is as my context, how am I supposed to understand the metaphor in the OP?

On the flip side, reason in its current incarnation hasn't been able to make headway on many issues - the long list of unsolved problems in various disciplines is proof. — TheMadFool

No it isn't. To not "make headway", the long list should stay the same size. If it's getting shorter, it's making headway. You can't discern a trajectory from a single position.

There are countless non/ir-rational paths that have been taken. Tell me where they've lead that the path of reason hasn't already passed by. Point out one of those dark paths that have gone farther / further than the lumen naturale. Isn't the goal to turn (metanoia) from the shadows on the wall and see that we can leave Plato's Cave (mystification) by following the sun (reasoning)? — 180 Proof

Gracias for introducing me to a new term, lumen naturale. Had I known this concept when I started the thread, I would've happily used it - metaphors like these are probably the low hanging fruit which those who came before should've already hit upon and subjected to thorough examination and for these reasons borrowed instead of laboriously rediscovered. Muchas gracias for edifying on the illustrious history of the metaphor (I read a 5 line account of it).

That out of the way, the same short article on lumen naturale contrasts it with lumen gratiae (supernatural light of grace) and lumen fidei (divine revelation). These are exactly the kinds of lumen (light) that I'm suggesting deserve a second look, a second pass and not because they're feeling slighted or anything but because we might've dropped the ball by declaring them a total loss. You know how it is no? Junk can sometimes hold treasures of incalculable value.

However, lumen gratiae and lumen fidei were, per my analogy, two of probably many other stars that were visible in darkness of reason i.e. many others are out there, waiting to be be discovered by those who persevere in their search for such stars, the blessings of Fortuna will be at a premium.

I can see the problem which you identify with the lack of logic. I like the "Madfool's thread, but we do have to be careful that we don't overthrow the path of reason, because we need it to help us make sense of so much in life. We can cope with a bit of twilight, but if it gets too dark, we will need a torch, or some candles, to try and make some way forward, or else we may stumble and fall.

wow... what a post! That opening post just blew me away!!! I must reflect on it - because my spontaneous and direct answer would then probably not do it justice --- have to read it and ponder it.
Will be back though...

hear hear... second that...

I have thought about your idea, and what I think is that logic is extremely important, but, on the other hand, if feeling and intuition are left out, any philosophy will be rather inadequate. Perhaps, the twilight vision will ensure that the heat of the sunlight does not burn these aspects of truth to the point where they are overlooked completely.

I initially misread the title of your post as an exploration about the gradual disappearance of 'reason', much like the 'twilight of the idols', the Götterdämmerung. However you do not mean it in that sense, you wonder what reason is 'forgetting' or what notions are forgotten when we embrace reason. It is rather Kantian. Kant championed reason to make room for faith. 180 objects to this idea from a rather pragmatic point of view. The times in which reason was obscured were metaphorically 'dark times', the dark ages. There is nothing that is not illuminated by reason and the bright TL light is preferable to any twilight. In both instances reason seems to be portrayed as an 'in itself', something that exists apart from us. however I would contend that reason is social. Reason is a certain way of seeing the world, but its content is socially determined.

To also interject a Nietzsche quote (who indeed seems oddly apt as a dance partner in this discussion:

“Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decoration […]; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor […]. Yet we still do not know where the drive to truth comes from, for so far we have only heard about the obligation to be truthful which society imposes in order to exist"

What we call reason is also none other than a set of rules with which we play the game of world illumination (or world construction if you will). Reason is much more than logic, logic is formal and empty, but reason is substantial. It tells us what is reasonable, which perspectives should be respected and should be denied. Now the world view that is commonly known as that of reason or 'enlightenment', is called into question thee days. Especially from the point of view of the environment, new idols and markers of reason are erected. We have discussions to give legal rights to trees for instance, we view the world as one organism and gradually we turn to the body as the locus of 'thought'. Even the argument is not safe in the age of identity politics. I am right or wrong dependent on who I am. Those notions notion soon will become 'reasonable' over time, through social change. So yes, we are in the twilight of reason, but not in the way that you intend it. Reason has become old fashioned and trite. Zarathustra is now part of the pantheon. The future men to whom he talked are alive now. They are todays millennials and they will invert all values, just like Nietzsche commanded them to do.

(I thin they finally turned me into a sociiologist instead of a philosopher :gasp: :scream:

Take religion for instance. It's, however much one objects to it, been a source of solace, hope, even truths to boot. It's now losing ground to reason that promotes a more skeptical attitude — TheMadFool

Sort of. It's surely true that there are those who are skeptical of religion. But they are rarely skeptical of the "reason" they have replaced it with.

I am at awe in this thread!!!
And I must admit that when reading the posts of proof and also the rest given here - I do not know even what to add.
I find myself speechless (oh, when did that EVER happen??) because of the notions, the threads given - the inputs --- I cannot really do other than to second these and...
What should I add more than: -----------

must really reflect on this, and then, when I come back someone else has written something more that gave me something more to think about.
I feel home here.
Anyone have a couch for me?
:love:

:smirk:

Reason is skepsis, not doxa. Reasoning is a (relective) skill, not a belief or myth or ritual like religion; and, therefore, 'reason doubting reason' amounts to a performative contradiction (Descartes). As Camus says, reasoning may be inadequate but it is also indispensable. Religion, however, can be dispensed with (Hitchen's Razor).

... the blessings of Fortuna ... — TheMadFool

Reminds me of the gambler's fallacy. On the ceilings of some old casinos, like angels in a cathedral, they still paint stars. :sparkle:

Reminds me of the gambler's fallacy. On the ceilings of some old casinos, like angels in a cathedral, they still paint stars. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Thank (y)our lucky stars! :rofl: This is extremely intriguing in a certain sense, don't you agree? Stars as having something to do with luck and I mentioning how it might be necessary for the roll of the die to swing in our favor if we're to ever score (find a star that's been outshone by the sun) as it were, you know, hit a home run, make that discovery every other logician worth faer salt seems to be gunning for?

You do agree, of course, that chance has a major role to play in discoveries big and small, right? :point: List Of Discoveries Influenced By Chance. While my own life has been largely untainted by the vagaries of Fortuna, not that its turned out fabulous; au contraire, it's been, let's just say, a series of "unfortunate" (literally, I kid you not!) events. Mind the inconsistency but let it slide will you? Anyway, what I wanted to ask was, did you never experience chance events in your life? In other words, was every event in your life predictable to a tee? I'm guessing the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second question is "no". I maybe wrong of course but, hey, nobody's perfect, right?

Also, do you mind having a look at the following quote from an English Translation of the Tao Te Ching by Tolbert McCarroll:

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mysteries. — Tao Te Ching

Darkness? Darkness? A GATEWAY? What happened to lumen naturale (light of reason)?

One important point that I seem to have forgotten to make was that when we're comparing the rational to its alternatives, nonrational/irratonal/uber-rationals (you didn't think about this possibility did you?), you're not allowed to, it would be a circulus probando to, use rationality to judge the merits and demerits of alternatives to rationality. It would be like making the defendant in a court case the judge at his own trial. No fair!

You do agree, of course, that chance has a major role to play in discoveries big and small, right? — TheMadFool

Yes, of course, Feyerabend's rebut to Popper. To wit: "Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident." ~Mark Twain

"Mysteries" always beg questions and never answer them. Questions which can only be satisfied by "mysteries" are pseudo. "Faith in mysteries" is a gateway drug.

Now at this point in the thread I would like to disagree with Fool and Proof (foolproof?) - in some details.

The list Fool provided does not at all state the fact of chance at all. All humans there mentioned were in fact focused on gettin and searching for what they in the end found - when you search you WILL find. Now what you find may not always be what you expected - but if it would have been completely by chance then the person would not even have been looking for something within the - realm - of what ever they found in the end.
The concept of stochastic variable (chance or luck) does in fact exist - but not the way we use the concepts we normally call chance or luck - because you cannot have the luck if you do not go to the casino and bet there... now can you?

And Feyerabned did not say what Twain said - but he said that when what we find does not fit with what we expected within science then we should have ad hoc theories to explain what we found - such idea was against the thoughts of Popper who did not permit such theories...
Anyways - I was determined not to stumble into the details where threads normally go - but hold on to the initial ideas conveyed --- and I will do so.