RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3220Goal: $6000

Think before you Edit.

Jump to: navigation, search

You are irrational.

'Irrationality is cognition without rationality.

Irrationality can be broken down into two types: "pre-rationality," which is cognition before rationality, and "post-rationality," which is cognition after rationality.

Post-rationality is the deconstruction of rational grand-narratives, arising from exploring these narratives to their rational logical conclusions. When these conclusions run contra to that which the initially constructed narrative attempted to set forth, the resulting state of mind is post-rationality. So, for example: a scientist who rationally understands that a given culture's myths may not be factually true while still representing metaphoric and archetypal truths, would be said to be post-rational if he engaged in the retelling of these myths and the playing out of the the ceremonies associated with the myths. He would be "irrational" in that he is retelling stories which he knows are not factually true and performing ceremonies which he knows do not have meaning outside of metaphor and archetype, but he is not being pre-rational (which would be simply believing the myths without any rational thought), he is being post-rational.

Künstlerin (talk)02:54, 12 May 2011

Why are you repeating this nonsense here? That is what the talk page of the article is for.

- π02:56, 12 May 2011

What just repeat the nonsense in the talk page? I like it here where you can't delete it. One day you will realise that you are only looking at a fraction of the equation and then you will laugh because an irrational artist was the one who tried to show you the rest first.

Künstlerin (talk)03:08, 12 May 2011

I can delete it here. I think what you meant was I should not delete it from here.

- π03:16, 12 May 2011

You are my favorite type of person to troll. You are far too serious, literal-minded, and eager-to-be-right to engage in rational critical thought. And I love it. So I hope you never ban me. That way, I can keep holding the mirror to you and you can keep ignoring it or pretending that it's not your reflection, and I can keep laughing at you. It's kind of like the difference between Ares and Athene, in that one is the god of war and just loves fighting for the sake of it (you), and the other is the goddess of war but only fights on the side of truth and therefore always wins (me). Do you have a girlfriend, btw? Or a wife? I would feel so sorry for her. lol. =P gawd i hope this doesn't get me banned (yo, coz honestly i am a rational person and really like reading the articles, especially the ones about conservapedia). Künstlerin (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Künstlerin (talk)03:29, 12 May 2011

Well you have just admitted to being a troll. Who wants to pull the switch?

- π03:33, 12 May 2011

They have been sent to bed for 9 hours.

ТyTalk.03:35, 12 May 2011

Cheers.

- π03:37, 12 May 2011

check the talk page. then consider it rationally. please.

Künstlerin (talk)08:00, 13 May 2011
 

@Ty: "they"? or just me? i'm just one person... i think. =P

Künstlerin (talk)08:06, 13 May 2011

Yeah, Ty there is only one of it.

- π02:30, 14 May 2011

Gender-neutral, and didn't feel like teaching them lumen-speak.

ТyTalk.02:31, 14 May 2011

The third person, gender-neutral, singular pronoun is it, although they has become far more common in usage. It obviously wants to be referred to as it.

- π02:34, 14 May 2011

They we shall refer to it as it. Pi... guy?

ТyTalk.02:35, 14 May 2011

Yeah, I think Nx cleared that up when he got sick of the dancing around they were doing with my RationalWikiWiki article.

- π02:37, 14 May 2011

My timeline is better than your timeline :P

ТyTalk.02:40, 14 May 2011

I'm a "she" =). Or a "her" in the accusative, genitive, or dative. =) (the "-in" in "Künstlerin" is a feminine ending, btw)

Künstlerin (talk)how 'bout that?06:19, 14 May 2011

ohhh, yooo!!! my timeline is curving to meet up and join with this old timeline that my timeline originally got branched off from back when i got scared of making this certain choice in the summer between second and third grades but now i am not scared of making that choice and so now the two timelines are merging back into one. it's happening right now but u can only see it in crosssection.

Künstlerin (talk)08:09, 14 May 2011
 
 
 
 
Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone.
To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account.
See our privacy policy for further information.

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note: