ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/16/84)
I have recently been re-reading a wonderful little book called: This Book Needs No Title by Raymond M. Smullyan, the author of What Is the Name of This Book? Prentice-Hall, 1980 It is a collection of (mostly) very short pieces that walk the line between philosophy and religion. Many of them contain real insight. Here are a few brief excerpts: Is Man a Machine? Recently I was with a group of mathematicians and philosophers. One philosopher asked me whether I believed man was a machine. I replied, "Do you really think it makes any difference?" He most earnestly replied, "Of course! To me it is the most important question in philosophy." I had the following afterthoughts: I imagine that if my friend finally came to the conclusion that he >were< a machine, he would be infinitely crestfallen. I think he would think: "My God! How horrible! I am >only< a machine!" But if >I< should find out I were a machine, my attitude would be totally different. I would say: "How amazing! I never before realized that machines could be so marvelous!" -------- Intuition versus Reason I find it remarkable that people argue about this! Argument involves >reason< which is already loading the dice. When reason itself is on trial, one can hardly expect reason to be the judge! When people on the side of reason claim reason to be more reliable than intuition, they give >reasons< to support their belief. Those on the side of intuition claim their intuition tells them that intuition is superior to reason. Can reason ever be in conflict with intuition? Why certainly! There are false reasons and false intuitions. But valid reason obviously cannot be in conflict with valid intuition, since truth cannot be in conflict with truth (or can it?). The real question for any person is which is more reliable -- his intuition or his reason! For another person to say "you should trust your intuition" or "you should trust your reason" is obviously foolish; how does >he< know? Well, which >should< the person trust? How do I know? Well, how should >you< decide which to trust? By consulting your reason or your intuition? I don't know that either. One thing I do know: Certain people called "rationalists" make the definite claim that the only reliable road to knowledge is through science and reason. This claim is one of the most remarkable dogmas I have ever heard! I have seen many >reasons< given to support this claim, but they are unbelievably bad! Yet, of course, the claim >may< be true. It may be true but not provable (not even with a significantly high probability). I myself do not know of a single valid reason to support the claim. And my intuition tells me it is exceedingly unlikely. But my intuition may be wrong. In which case, the claim is true, despite its unprovability by its adherents. I would not be surprised if the rationalists recognize the truth of this claim by virtue of some valid mystical intuition which I lack. -------- A Paradoxical Rationalist Once there was a man who was constantly and irritatingly rational. When asked, "Why are you so rational?" he replied: "Because it is irrational to be so rational. Basically I am irrational -- I love irrationality; the more the better. The most irrational thing I can do is to be as rational as I am. That is the reason I am so rational." -------- Happiness Jim: Are you happy at this very moment? John: In one way, yes; in another way, no. Jim: Can you be more explicit? John: Yes, I have just heard the first really convincing argument for the immortality of the soul. Now I know for sure that I will survive my bodily death. This makes me very happy. On the other hand, my steak is overdone. --------