Yes. Rationality is an illusion. Rational deduction depends on "implication" which is not actually a thing in physical reality.
> there is no single, unchanging person having them
This is the essential breakthrough that Buddha had: all things are impermanent and if you go looking for yourself you eventually find that there is no "self" there.
> there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking
Yes, thoughts are totally irrelevant to living. They are just a sort of fun window dressing. It's possible to "switch off" all thinking and still function. The body carries out all it's activities including talking to other people but "you" are not "doing" anything. It's pleasant. (I typically do it while washing the dishes.)
> But if this is the case, then any argument in favour of the position just outlined -- or any other, contrary position -- is neither right nor wrong. So everything becomes absurd.
No. The above is a description of the situation, not an argument that can be invalidated.
If rationality is an illusion, then rationality is both an illusion and not an illusion, and all things are impermanent and permanent in the same respect, and Buddha both did and didn't have the breakthrough you describe, and you are both right and wrong in everything you write here, and so on.
Yes. Rationality is an illusion. Rational deduction depends on "implication" which is not actually a thing in physical reality.
> there is no single, unchanging person having them
This is the essential breakthrough that Buddha had: all things are impermanent and if you go looking for yourself you eventually find that there is no "self" there.
> there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking
Yes, thoughts are totally irrelevant to living. They are just a sort of fun window dressing. It's possible to "switch off" all thinking and still function. The body carries out all it's activities including talking to other people but "you" are not "doing" anything. It's pleasant. (I typically do it while washing the dishes.)
> But if this is the case, then any argument in favour of the position just outlined -- or any other, contrary position -- is neither right nor wrong. So everything becomes absurd.
No. The above is a description of the situation, not an argument that can be invalidated.