sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (09/23/83)
(utah doesn't get net.philosophy anymore, so my replies are going to be only on the rare occasions I get on ssc-vax) So! What's the difference between rationality and the rationalizing of irrational acts? How am I or anyone else supposed to know the difference 'twixt the two? Raskolnikov (from Dostoevsky) thought he was being rational at the time of his murders, and that his horror at what he was doing was merely weakness. It was only later that he realized that his actions were wrong (no mention of rationality though, except maybe for a suggestion that reason alone could not distinguish between right and wrong - but then Dostoevsky was not an Objectivist). Who establishes the standard of rationality? Re the Taggart Shooting: if the situation is supposed to be one of war, then of course anything goes - at least if you accept that unlimited warfare is rational (or even that *any* warfare is rational). I have problems with that; seems to suggest that Might makes Right. A random thought: why is Objectivism so recent in origin? Seems to be strictly 20th century, the 'neotechnic' age as Lewis Mumford puts it. Perhaps being surrounded by consistently "rational" machines has an inordinate influence on some people. They come to envy the machine's complete control over itself and desire to become like that. It's impossible for humans, but perhaps some see it as an ideal goal - one that all should strive fr. I have no problem with rationality per se, but insisting on it as the basis of human existence? How do we keep our thinking from being dominated by our machines? stan the r.h. (of darkness) ssc-vax!sts (actually utah-cs!shebs)