trc@houca.UUCP (11/03/83)
Note to utcsstat!laura and Mike Simpson: What are you considering as something that you like, but that is irrational? I suggest that you examine the thing carefully, and see what aspects about them give you the most enjoyment. It is possible to gain pleasure from irrational things (as the brute that enjoys killing people might), but most people can recognize when something is justly enjoyable. In the case of nursing, for example, a large part of the joy *could* (and should) come from engaging in a very productive activity. The fact that it is done for others immediate benefit doesnt make it irrational. Doing it *for the purpose* of benefiting others (rather than for the enjoyment of productive activity and the pay for doing it) would be irrational - probably done out of some sense of duty. It is not irrational to experience emotion, or to enjoy feelings - merely to allow one's self to be *ruled* by them, beyond the range of the moment. In fact, it can be irrational to try to suppress feelings, or to fail to examine them (in retrospect, and only to a degree proportional to the importance or strength or commonness of the emotion) to see if they are in line with reason. (In fact, noting that one's emotions are alligned with reason can be a source of pleasure, since one's emotions are an indicator of one's automaticized value judgements.) Finally, (and this is not an attack - merely a request for information) what basic premises do you see Rand as having left un-written, Laura? Tom Craver houca!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/11/83)
The basic premise of most Western thought is that there is ONE reality out there. If you question this one you get some pretty strange results. I think that this is necessary for a rational philosophy to be workable. There had better be a 'true' or a 'false' out there. Nowhere have I read that Rand has said this, and it is the sort of thing that people don't generally question. However, if this is not a very good model of reality then we have had it. The next one is rather similar -- it is not sufficient that the one reality exists out there, but we human beings had better be equipped to perceive it by means of reason alone. Otherwise, again, we have had it. These sorts of things are generally not discussed because they are fundamental to so much of what everyone does and believes. Most people believe that the LAW of GRAVITY is real, out there, and true, not merely that it has held true for the vast majority of recorded instances where it was tested. I really think of it as a truth myself, you know. I don't expect to start levitating any moment. But I do not really have much evidence to support the claim that *all* things work that way. And if when 2 people meet, and disagree, there can be 2 rights and 0 wrongs it does not bode very well for the success of a rational philosophy! In general, one has faith that there is a true reality out there that things can be measured against, and that there is a 'true' and a 'false' and a 'right' and a 'wrong'. it is a simplifying assumption that you often have to make to get any useful work done. BUT, it is still out there, unproven, and probably impossible to prove. --- on to enjoyment --- The problem is that I cannot give a rational explanation of why I like strawberries. (I just like 'em!) So if somebody came by and questioned my rationality saying that "a truly rational person would not take so much enjoyment out of strawberries" or "obviously you are supressing your desire for something else through your love of strawberries" or whatever somebody who does not like strawberries might say, i am left holding the bag, wouldn't you say? Now, there is a person in the office with me who *HATES* all fruit. As far as he is concerned, i must be seriously derranged or have faulty tastebuds to eat strawberries. I, of course, think that he is missing out on one of the chief joys in life. Now, he not only dislikes the taste of strawberries, but he also hates the smell. it therefore would be to his advantage to ban all strawberry production. After all, you could use all the money that goes into strawberry production to produce more COKE (foul stuff!) that he likes. I, on the other hand, could live without his coke. Now I recognise that he enjoys coke, and he recognises that I enjoy strawberries. But what is to stop us from deciding that each is less rational than the other due to our taste peculiarities? What can either of us say in our defence? As far as I can see -- nothing. Whatever makes me like strawberries is probably not rational. I cannot see that my like or dislike of strawberries would add or lessen my rationality. Thus I have isolated a class of problems which are not solvable by rational means. I resort to other things -- compassion, for instance. I promise to not eat strawberries in the office or in his apartment, so that he does not have to smell them or look at them. if he eats dinner with me, though either in my house or in a restaurant, he is going to have to lump it if strawberries are on the menu, because I am about 100% likely to eat them. thus we avoid killing each other, through the use of something other than reason. I have to use something other than reason all the time to avoid killing people. It seems a rather crucial part of existance -- finding out what (if anything) you are willing to kill somebody for and what you are not, and finding out when or when not to give ground in an argument, and how to resolve difficulties.... Some of these methods work, and some, alas, do not. I get burned in life as well. But I do not see them as problems with my rationality, so i doubt that making me more rational will fix the problem. How to determine if one is rational and how to improve one's rationality is another problem which I have never seen adequately discussed. Or if there is a relationship between intelligence and rationality? I don't remember Rand saying anything, but all her heros seem to be pretty smart people. This is not so good if you are not smart. Do we have the intellectual capability to live by reason alone (or primarily by reason)? I don't know. But I do not understand te workings of 4.1bsd very well, and I have been working at it. I think that the problems of life, the universe, and everything are a lot tougher than the multiplexer! Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura