• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is there a reason for everything?

Which comes closer to your point of view?


  • Total voters
    13

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Which comes closer to your point of view:

A) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.

B) I believe there are some things that go beyond any rational explanation and it's futile to try to find a reason.


Are there type differences in the tendency towards A or B? I'd guess NTs would be more inclined towards A and NFs towards B.

I'm strongly in the first camp.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
hm? Those two groups aren't exclusive, to me. You can have things that have a reason, but trying to find that reason is futile since it's beyond our comprehension ("rational explanation"), at least at this point in time.

I suppose I fit more in group A though, if I'd have to choose.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
A definitely. You should add a poll if it isn't too late.
 
R

Riva

Guest
A) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.

This.

We do have the tools - Actions have consequences.

However we do not know when and what actions produced the consequences and don't forget; our understanding of life is limited to the present, whereas there very well could have been others.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm never entirely certain how to deal with that question because it seems reasonable to say there is an explanation for everything, a cause-and-effect. That is different than saying there is a "reason", which implies that there is meaning or a connection to something larger. I don't assume my brain has the capacity to comprehend the whole of reality, so it could be more than just a lack of tools.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Which comes closer to your point of view:

A) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.

B) I believe there are some things that go beyond any rational explanation and it's futile to try to find a reason.


Are there type differences in the tendency towards A or B? I'd guess NTs would be more inclined towards A and NFs towards B.

I'm strongly in the first camp.

A)

If, by "reason" you refer to a demonstrable series of events that describe or justify an action, then yes -- our physical universe can be "reason"-ably understood. The second part of your statement isn't (ironically) rational: to determine the engine behind our lack of understanding, either by way of inadequacy in "tools" or intellectual experience requires a system wherein all the variables (all maths, all science, all positive information) have already been collected and measured against the control variable (us) and ultimately evaluated as intellectually unavailable and then organized as either a question of "tools" or infancy in physical experience.

To know why we don't know requires an understanding of physical reality that already contains everything predefined. In short, we'd already know everything, so the act of trying to understand why we still don't know something would be irrational. :)

B)

"Rational understanding" simply means we can diagram the process taken to arrive at a conclusion: A mechanical expression of observed, repeatable event. We have a rational understanding of why light travels faster than sound, or why the space around an object distorts as gravity increases. The ultimate expression of rational would be something close to (limited) omniscience, where every possible process is understood and all information has been encountered, insofar as your current physical universe allows.

So, to transcend this limited omniscience, you'd have to introduce new information from somewhere else. Like a new dimension. Or different universe. With enough time and space, this process could feasibly repeat forever.

If (true) omniscience is knowing everything, everywhere, the process of introduction and mastery would need to repeat forever.


So, to answer your question, nothing is beyond rational explanation unless it occurs outside your physical reality. And even then, only for a little while.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
A)

If, by "reason" you refer to a demonstrable series of events that describe or justify an action, then yes -- our physical universe can be "reason"-ably understood. The second part of your statement isn't (ironically) rational: to determine the engine behind our lack of understanding, either by way of inadequacy in "tools" or intellectual experience requires a system wherein all the variables (all maths, all science, all positive information) have already been collected and measured against the control variable (us) and ultimately evaluated as intellectually unavailable and then organized as either a question of "tools" or infancy in physical experience.

To know why we don't know requires an understanding of physical reality that already contains everything predefined. In short, we'd already know everything, so the act of trying to understand why we still don't know something would be irrational. :)

B)

"Rational understanding" simply means we can diagram the process taken to arrive at a conclusion: A mechanical expression of observed, repeatable event. We have a rational understanding of why light travels faster than sound, or why the space around an object distorts as gravity increases. The ultimate expression of rational would be something close to (limited) omniscience, where every possible process is understood and all information has been encountered, insofar as your current physical universe allows.

So, to transcend this limited omniscience, you'd have to introduce new information from somewhere else. Like a new dimension. Or different universe. With enough time and space, this process could feasibly repeat forever.

If (true) omniscience is knowing everything, everywhere, the process of introduction and mastery would need to repeat forever.


So, to answer your question, nothing is beyond rational explanation unless it occurs outside your physical reality. And even then, only for a little while.
Much more thorough than my answer, but in the same vein. Go Ni! :thumbup:
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I would place myself in the second position (B) - logic can be turned on its head, just as laws can be broken under extreme conditions; there is a field full of potential ahead that can in no way be limited.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
hm? Those two groups aren't exclusive, to me. You can have things that have a reason, but trying to find that reason is futile since it's beyond our comprehension ("rational explanation"), at least at this point in time.

I suppose I fit more in group A though, if I'd have to choose.

Something like this
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Speaking as a perceiver of sorts, it seems to me that if you can be aware of "it", then you can rationalize "it". So then what of the things that happen that you cannot be aware of? If there are such things, was there a reason for them? To say "yes" seems like an act of faith. In which case, rationally, one might be better off saying "no, there wasn't a reason, and there won't have been one until we somehow become able to know there was one."

All moot, of course, if we claim that were something to happen, then we would in principle able to be aware of it.

th
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Which comes closer to your point of view:

A) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.

B) I believe there are some things that go beyond any rational explanation and it's futile to try to find a reason.
Neither. Both options imply a kind of dogmatic and unfounded certainty.

A) is pure arrogance. How can anyone sensibly assert an opinion about what one does not know?
B) is just defeatism/sour grapes.

There is no compelling reason to believe that there is a reason for anything let alone everything, yet it seems to be comforting to human beings to believe otherwise. Which, in the final analysis, is probably the only reason that matters.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Speaking as a perceiver of sorts, it seems to me that if you can be aware of "it", then you can rationalize "it". So then what of the things that happen that you cannot be aware of? If there are such things, was there a reason for them? To say "yes" seems like an act of faith. In which case, rationally, one might be better off saying "no, there wasn't a reason, and there won't have been one until we somehow become able to know there was one."

All moot, of course, if we claim that were something to happen, then we would in principle able to be aware of it.

th

many things are so complex that you are not able to be aware of it all and being able to rationalize something doesent mean just seeing that something is, you need to be able to comprehend it from all angles and know how it reacts to other things etc. perceiving it would be like knowing a word and being able to rationalize is being able to actually use that word in a sentence that makes sense.

quantum physics would be a good example, you can perceive weird things, but people can only theorize what the heck is actually going on and cant even seem to find a proper paradigm for how light works. seeing that light hits your eye doesent really mean that light can be rationalized
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There is no compelling reason to believe that there is a reason for anything let alone everything, yet it seems to be comforting to human beings to believe otherwise. Which, in the final analysis, is probably the only reason that matters.
This, actually.

Do you mean "reason" as "explanation" or "reason" as "purpose"? Those are totally different, but are often conflated. One is scientific and the other is teleogical or sentimental. Scientific investigation has consistently turned up explanation for things, but there are a lot of things we can't explain, and perhaps there is some sort of randomness too. Like electrons only have a probability of being in a certain place at a certain time. There may be an underlying pattern, but observing it influences the results. As for "purpose," well I think that is entirely human created because it makes us feel good. But who am I to say? Maybe feeling good is the "purpose" of human life.
 

Il Morto Che Parla

New member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,260
MBTI Type
xxTP
It's a question of faith. I believe in destiny, whatever happened, was meant to be.

So yes, there's a reason, it is inescapable, you will get the life you were destined for.

Those things which ended, were not meant to be. Those things which happened, were for a reason, which only at the end of the story will be understood.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
Which comes closer to your point of view:

A) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.

B) I believe there are some things that go beyond any rational explanation and it's futile to try to find a reason.


Are there type differences in the tendency towards A or B? I'd guess NTs would be more inclined towards A and NFs towards B.

I'm strongly in the first camp.

To apply reason, you have to have a perception about what you are going to reason. And how you perceive things will affect how you reason them; and how you reason things will affect how you perceive things.

Rationality (reason) and irrationality (perception) then are intertwined with each other. This is also a conceptual basis for Jung's irrational functions (Ni, Ne, Si, and Se) versus rational functions (Fi, Fe, Te, and Ti).

That said, irrationals would reason based on perceptions, while rationals would perceive based on reasons, conceptually speaking. It also means that from the perspective of being an individual, that there are aspects to your existence that are both rational and irrational to you, making the idea that you can find a reason to everything somewhat paradoxical in regards to yourself. That doesn't mean that reality itself however couldn't be fully explained, but it does mean any explanation you find or create is tinged with irrationality.

To hope to fully explain reality then, one would have to be removed from it in order not to affect it (or change its nature). Paradoxically though, unless you created the reason behind reality as some God, even if you were removed from it, there would be no way to observe it in order to understand it. So the belief that reality can be fully reasoned becomes somewhat silly. Determinists then, I find incredibly ironic because reason (as I've done here) can be used to prove the unreasonable, yet they believe everything can be fully reasoned. Funny then...how being reasonable can be so unreasonable.


But I find your description of A) somewhat annoying in regards to B) in that it doesn't modify it as a belief also. I'll fix it. And if you asked me, I'd say you left out category C) as well:

A) (I believe) There is a reason for everything that happens. We just may not know it yet or currently lack the tools needed to answer our questions.
B) I believe there are some things that go beyond any rational explanation and it's futile to try to find a reason.
C) I'm open to the idea that reality can be irrational and rational in regards to myself, even if it is truly fundamentally rational or irrational. I don't need to believe anything in order to do so.

I'm C). It's seems hard to find others in C) as well. But it's easy to spot in communication; those in A) or B) will compartmentalize those in C) as in A) or B). Those in C) will refrain because they know better. I like C)s. They don't feel threatening.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Things happen for statistical reasons.

So a coin will come up heads for no particular reason. But a thousand tosses of the coin will give a particular result, for statistical reasons.

And in the same way an atom will decay for no particular reason but a thousand atoms will decay with great precision.

However we seek patterns even when there are none, so things seem to happen for a reason. This is the reason we gamble - we don't know the statistical odds, and assign reasons where there are none.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
I forgot to mention this...but I have a very large problem with the way the OP and poll are worded. While I chose "reason" to mean "scientific explanation," someone else might take it to mean that "reason" signifies "meaning."

Wording is everything.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
many things are so complex that you are not able to be aware of it all and being able to rationalize something doesent mean just seeing that something is, you need to be able to comprehend it from all angles and know how it reacts to other things etc. perceiving it would be like knowing a word and being able to rationalize is being able to actually use that word in a sentence that makes sense.

OMG EVEN U?!

Those words "rationalize" and "perceive" work differently for us--AS U WELL KNOW! It behooves us all to ask then whether any of those words have meaning outside of cognitive constructs. Objectivity in "thinking" and "reasoning" is differently placed for Te and Ti types; compass and utility of perception likewise differs depending on whether you lean more heavily on Ni or Ne for the content of that perception. Etc. So how in the end is it possible to make sense of "comprehend it from all angles" or "know how it reacts to other things" WITHOUT JUST MAKING STUFF UP?

"Is there a reason for everything?" devolves then to a more fundamental question: "Do we ever make direct contact with anything at all outside our own heads?" If we don't, then the question of reasons is objectively unanswerable. But if we do, then maybe there can be a basis for discovering reasons for everything.

Personally, I think we do make direct contact with the outside world. I don't mean Se here. I mean there's at least some fraction of human cognition that draws its information or judgment directly from the outside. I presume it's not any conscious part, though. By the time cognition is conscious it is thoroughly alienated from the world. But something in there is directly connected, whether we like it or not.

As to whether there really are reasons independent of human invention of "reasons".... sure, why not? No need now to go belly flopping into religion just because science got hard, eh? We're not Fs, after all.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
"Is there a reason for everything?" devolves then to a more fundamental question: "Do we ever make direct contact with anything at all outside our own heads?" If we don't, then the question of reasons is objectively unanswerable. But if we do, then maybe there can be a basis for discovering reasons for everything.

The funny thing is, even if we do make direct contact outside our own heads, there's still the question of whether or not reality has any strict forms to begin with. After all, time glues everything, but changes everything, given enough time. That change itself is then ironic in that it would have no definite form and then couldn't be definitely reasoned, but yet that process of changing could be perceived as having an abstract form on itself - an archetype. For example, a human being could be considered an archetypal pattern from which all humans are different in some degree and live differently in some degree; so if we talk about being human as a particular kind of archetypal process that we go through, that would have more insightful meaning than talking about a human being definitely, which is going to be somewhat different for all of us and carry some margin of error, despite being "reasonable".

In this sense, does SuchIrony equate reason with understanding? It seems so, but it would be mistaken as there can be understanding without reason too, whereas there is no understanding with the unreasonable. And B) does not necessarily assert that there are aspects to the world that are unreasonable, but maybe sometimes without reason.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Personally, I think we do make direct contact with the outside world. I don't mean Se here. I mean there's at least some fraction of human cognition that draws its information or judgment directly from the outside. I presume it's not any conscious part, though. By the time cognition is conscious it is thoroughly alienated from the world. But something in there is directly connected, whether we like it or not.

What nonsense. What arrogance! "I think...I presume....therefore, it's true, whether you like it or not!"

Are you INTJ, by any chance?

"Also, I'm not going to flesh out how such a thing might even be possible, because, you know, Ni doesn't work that way. Still, this makes me better than a simple feeler-believer."

:rolleyes:
 
Top