Irrationality - as a middle ground between rationality and nonsense. A lost space (thanks primarily to the Enlightenment era and Cartesian dualism). A sort of fluid ground, not utterly rational and logical, yet real and influential.
What then distinguishes it from nonsense?
Its ability to influence and deeply affect matters of life and thought.
My claim:
Irrationality is an unaccepted and often rejected notion in language and meaning that needs actually to be given space for operation, if language is to make sense. However, cannot make it into a rule, that would then make it rational - lose its very identity. Not saying irrationality is a must; but saying that its presence and influence has to be accepted and acknowledged.
Primary argument/evidence:
Without giving space for irrationality, language becomes fossilized. There is no scope for further emergence of meaning. The existence of this dynamism which cannot be explained by all the rules put together, is evidence enough to state that there is some other force, besides the agreed and accepted rules and norms, at play.
What then distinguishes it from nonsense?
Its ability to influence and deeply affect matters of life and thought.
My claim:
Irrationality is an unaccepted and often rejected notion in language and meaning that needs actually to be given space for operation, if language is to make sense. However, cannot make it into a rule, that would then make it rational - lose its very identity. Not saying irrationality is a must; but saying that its presence and influence has to be accepted and acknowledged.
Primary argument/evidence:
Without giving space for irrationality, language becomes fossilized. There is no scope for further emergence of meaning. The existence of this dynamism which cannot be explained by all the rules put together, is evidence enough to state that there is some other force, besides the agreed and accepted rules and norms, at play.
No comments:
Post a Comment