trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/23/83)
Response to Alan Wexelblat: You say "My abilities to read, understand, and reply to your articles are indicative merely of a comprehension of the rules of English, and some knowledge of the subject matter". Interesting - are you saying that you dont have to think to understand? Every nuance, suggestion, implication, is immediately clear to you? (Or are you just saying that you *dont* think, and ignore the nuances, suggestions, implications...) And in fact, how do you suppose you came to understand English? It might be possible to learn the meanings of words by rote memorization, but do you also memorize entire sentences? Do you claim that the rules of grammar are sufficient to derive meaning? I am certain that a number of AI experts would disagree with you on *that* point! And how did you come to get *understanding* of the subject matter? You say you could define a class that is "*EXACTLY that which is commonly referred to as "human", which would be "a group ... which are defined by their ability to learn and use rules of phrase-structure grammars." First, let me point out that you are therefore excluding those who are unable to learn language - though they are commonly considered humans. It is exactly this sort of person that I was refering to when I said 'almost exactly that which is commonly refered to as "human"'. Secondly, what do you suppose that "ability to learn..." is called? I call it "rationality" - though that is not the only thing that rationality allows one to do. Concepts are not born into humans- they are created or re-created (learned) by use of reason. And one certainly cannot understand arguments on philosophical matters in purely grammatical terms. As to the two men and the sword - I would not knowingly give him a weapon in his (irrational) state of mind, lest I become an accomplice to murder, both legally and morally. In addition to this selfish cause, there is also the cause that the other is one's friend, and one (selfishly) might not want the friend to get in trouble. (Note that I use the word "cause", not "purpose".) Plato is correct, though not for the reason you are supposing. Do you suppose that having a friend mad at you is of equal importance with having him commit a murder? Would one want a murderer for a friend? Tom Craver houti!trc P.S. - If you truly reject rationality, there is no point in any futher discussion between us. I am serious - I have no desire to discuss philosophy with a "phrase-structure grammar" interpreter. I want to discuss philosophy with people who are willing to apply reason to important questions. If you reject reason, you reject the means of either proving or disproving any idea. If you claim that you are *only* rejecting the idea that the rational capability is native to human beings, how can *you* claim to have it? If you did not have the in-born capacity to be rational, how could you gain it?