trc@houti.UUCP (08/23/83)
Response to stan the leprechaun hacker: Rational behavior is that which is based upon reason, applied to the reality of one's nature and one's circumstances. Reality is the basis for "selecting" it, and reality *is* absolute. That is, whatever is real, is real. No amount of wishing or hoping or lying to one's self is going to change it. Reason is the process of applying logical thought to known facts and principles to deduce further facts, or to induce and then test new general principles. The arena of application is that of concepts, which are integrations of more basic concepts and of perceptions. You seem to have mis-read or missed some of my notes: I do not believe that "a proper definition of rights and freedoms somehow automagically excludes conflicts." I do think that a proper definition (which I have given - do you wish to criticize it directly?) will prevent rational people who follow its implications from *causing* conflicts. I have explictly stated that rights can (rarely) be brought into conflict, by natural events or irrational actions, and that much of the advances that civilized men have achieved have been aimed at reducing the possibility of natural events causing such situations. There is nothing magical about that. Tom Craver houti!trc
sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/24/83)
I am *not* going to discuss whether reality is absolute - not, not, not... Neither am I going to say anything about how we *perceive* reality. So Tom does not *believe* that rights of completely rational beings ever come into conflict, except from outside causes. What is the source for this Belief? Rational thought? By what chain of reasoning then, and from what axioms? Still seems pretty mystical in origin! In his examples of conflicts, at some point the two parties sit down, compare their facts, and then arrive at the same conclusion. Well, I don't know which universe Tom lives in, but mine tends to have a lot of vagueness and unknowns in it. The only really complete and consistent universe I know of is mathematics, and it's pretty small and simpleminded compared to reality. How can one be *truly* rational in an irrational universe? (Didn't I say I wasn't going to get into this? oh well). Moving on, suppose we live in the ideal Objectivist world, and you want to buy a car. Suppose you investigate the car market carefully, examine all the details, then buy a revolutionary new design because it's more fuel-efficient. Later on, the design turns out to have a fatal flaw - literally fatal. The manufacturer had decided that some ridiculous test that used to be required by the govt wasn't really necessary (let us suppose that it *was* a sensible and rational decision on the manufacturer's part). Now, have you made a mistake? Are you expected to have complete knowledge of auto engineering, in order to detect flaws? Suppose that you are one of the first buyers, and that none of the consumer groups had thought the tests were necessary? Finally(this is the hard one), since you are now dead, how are you supposed to correct your mistake? stan the lep hack ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) ps Still waiting for an example of a rational human.... pps Sorry, I just can't resist: perhaps a human is rational if and only if he or she agrees completely with Tom Craver; otherwise, that person is at least partly irrational (so what have you got that's better?)