합리
1  합리적인, 도리에 맞는(reasonable)(↔ irrational). a ∼ plan 합리적인 계획. act in a ∼ way 합리적으로 행동하다.

이성적인, 분별 있는, 양식 있는; 이성을 갖춘; 제정신의, 정상인(sane). a ∼ statesman 양식 있는 정치가. Man is a ∼ animal. 인간은 이성이 있는 동물이다. The criminal was surprisingly ∼. 그 범죄자는 놀랄 만큼 정상이었다.

추리력의, 추론의; 이성에 근거한, 논리적인 cf. REASONABLE 1. the capacity for ∼ thought 논리적인 사고 능력. ∼ behavior 논리적 행동. the ∼ faculty in man 사람의 추리력.

數〕 유리(有理)의(↔ surd). a ∼ number 유리수.

  합리적인 것; 합리[이성]적인 생물, 인간(human being).

Racional
منطقيّة
Λογικός
Rationeel
Racional
Рационально
Rationellt

Alan Watts
Watts d'Alan
Alan Watt
Watt del Alan
アランのワット
알랜 와트
阿伦瓦特
Vatios de Alan
阿倫瓦特
ألان [وتّس]
Alan Watts
Alan Watts
Watts de Alan
Ватты Алан
Alan watt:

..."Most people seem certain any hope for the perfectibility of man must await intervention by the Creator yet cannot fathom its up to MAN to open the door. For a rescue of mercy, long overdue, we must demonstrate our mettle to the universe with another renaissance movement of the highest order, perhaps to be known as 'Mnemosyne's Age of Enlightenment' to honor this mother of the Muses.

And, to maintain a consistent theme... with Hercules dead WE must clean those Augean stables instead, our governments! Tasks no doubt for the Illuminati and warrior poets to begin the process..."

Gobbledygook is not a recent problem. Gobbledygook is language that is so pompous, long-winded, and abstract that it is unintelligible. Some 200 years ago, opponents of Benjamin Franklin argued that to vote, a man had to own property. Franklin's supporters disagreed and stated their case as follows:

[It cannot be adhered to with any reasonable degree of intellectual or moral certainty that the inalienable right man possesses to exercise his political preferences by employing his vote in referendums is rooted in anything other than man's own nature, and is, therefore, properly called a natural right. To hold, for instance, that this natural right can be limited externally by making its exercise dependent on a prior condition of ownership of property is to wrongly suppose that man's natural right to vote is somehow more inherent in and more dependent on the property of man than it is on the nature of man. It is obvious that such belief is unreasonable, for it reverses the order of rights intended by nature.]

Franklin agreed with this argument but knew that people wouldn't be moved by such pompous oratory. So he explained his position as follows:

[To require property of voters leads us to this dilemma: I own a jackass; I can vote. The jackass dies; I cannot vote. Therefore the vote represents not me but the jackass.]

Revelation Paradox, Living Paradox, Awareness Paradox, Language Paradox, Choice Paradox, Self Paradox, Human Paradox, quid pro quo Paradox, Personal Development Paradox, Age quod agis – Do what you do [best] ; 理性的

Loading more stuff…

Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?

Loading videos…