laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/28/83)
Note to all of you who send me mail: I am not proposing that people act irrationally as they can, and that this is a good thing. I am sure that I have never said this, but in case this is not clear: I am not attacking the Tom Craver version of rationality, or the Tom Craver version of Objectivism because I harbour any hatred for: a) Tom Craver b) Ayn Rand c) Rational Thought. Okay. Everybody happier now? (probably not, but at least I tried.) Tom Craver and I agree about a lot of things (I think). At any rate, we are both on record as saying that selfishness is a good thing, and governments (at least as they are currently, organisations which exist to use force or the threat of force to compel supposedly free people to act in a way that they would not otherwise) are bad things. What I disagree with is his contention that rational thought is the way people should settle disputes and whatever else goes into interacting with other people. Don't get me wrong, I think that ratinal thought is a good thing, and the world could use a LOT MORE of it, but I do not think that it is sufficient. However, Tom has nailed the whole basis of our disagreement right here, so let me quote him: The example you presented (generalized to ignore the specifics) seems to be one of conflicting evidence which brings rational people into conflict. In cases of conflicting evidence, there is a final arbiter - reality. The persons in conflict should compare their evidence, find any contradictions, and look to reality to resolve them. Okay. This presupposes 1 common reality which all people share. This is a common belief, and it is well founded in Western thought, and Aristotle and Aquinas used it a great deal to shape their ideas which did indeed shape Western thought -- the question is, what if there isn't? The next question is, what if, although there is a common reality we cannot perceive it without distorting it (slightly)? Thus, even if there is 1 true reality out there, all we have are our own personal realities which we generally assume to be good versions of the reality? So far, I have found a lot of evidence for the ability of perceptions to be flawed. You hear of scientists who cannot do the Michaelson-Morley (sp?) experiment in their labs? Perhaps they have found an area where their perceptions do not match with others'. People have failed to repeat this despite having a good experimental method and excellent equipment. Also, people have been hypnotised and told that a hot coal was going to be placed on their arm. They develop blisters when you touch their arm with your finger. There was no "real reason" for them to be burnt, but their burns are as real as any other. (This leads to the interesting question -- do I burn myself on my stove because it is int he nature of the stove to burn me, or because all people are 'hypnotised' to assume that stoves burn?) If there is no 1 reality, or if we cannot perceive it, then Objectivism is fatally flawed. Which is too bad, because in many ways it is such an attractive philosophy! Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura