torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/19/85)
Even number of >'s = me, torek, Odd number = Nat Howard (nrh@inmet): >>>>Fine, but nobody else is going to listen to you either, except the "already >>>>converted", so to speak. >> >I was "devastated" because I don't believe you... They aren't going to listen for the reasons I gave (>>) below. >By participants, do you count the people who do NOT speak as well? Yes. >>>>You are confusing "irrational" with "nonrational". Love is nonrational >> >>>[Romeo and Juliet example] >> >>Gimme a break. Obviously love played a role in such errors, but wiser >>people could have made wiser choices -- even while feeling just as power- >>ful feelings. To make an analogy, consider the definition of courage not >>as absence of fear, but as keeping one's head in the face of fear. > >Let's consider Romeo and Juliet as being strangers (with but mild good >intentions towards each other). Can you imagine Romeo taking any >important step that was predicated on Juliet being dead without >examining the "corpse"? Possible I suppose, but so unlikely..... The point being, love can crowd out rationality? True, it *can* (but not: it *must*), and so *can* fear -- now see above on courage. >Take it one level up. It was surely contrary to reason for Romeo and >Juliet to love one another. Perhaps. Not so obvious. If so, it would be rational to try to stop being in love, which is presumably possible though definitely not easy. This just shows my point -- that love is NONrational -- not yours -- that it is IRrational. [The discussion on love isn't very related to the rest, considering that I just offered love as an example of something that is nonrational but not irrational, thus illustrating my distinction. Since the example was controversial, it wasn't a very good illustration. If you want to continue the discussion on love, can we break it off into a separate set of postings? Also, that way we could post it to (say) .philosophy and .singles?] >>True, but, as I pointed out before, changing one's preferences is >>uncomfortable. So while you may not NEED a reason to have them respond to >>logic, you HAVE one to have your preferences NOT respond to logic -- on the >>(hypothetical) hypothesis that preferences are by nature nonrational. > >My point was that my arguing with you is a rational act even if I believe >your preferences have no ultimate basis in logic. Especially if you >BELIEVE your beliefs to be grounded in reason, reason may have an impact. In other words, you'll use this belief against me, pretending when it's convenient that you share it? Ideological mystification! >That your irrational preference for your own beliefs (if your beliefs >are truly irrational) will work against me doesn't mean that some other >force (perhaps a desire to have an open mind and to stick with reason >where possible) will more than overcome it. I think it does, given that I'll take any reasoning you offer with a HUGE grain of salt! (And, I think, any not-already-converted reader who has read the above will also.) --Paul V Torek, upping the ante torek@umich
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/22/85)
Nat, Paul please post a short definition of non-rational and irrational. I think you are fighting paper tigers. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/22/85)
Those interested in my replies to Paul Torek's messages will have to look in net.politics or net.politics.theory (notesfiles have some weaknesses, you see, and....)
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/23/85)
In article <204@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Nat, Paul please post a short definition of non-rational and irrational. >I think you are fighting paper tigers. I already did. Go grep for it in net.politics.theory. If you can't find it, if the article has expired, I'll send you a copy, if you ask for it within a few weeks (the typical amount of time I keep my old articles). --Paul V "I only laugh when it hurts" Torek torek@umich