Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts
From: sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Irrational Bases
Message-ID: <419@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Aug-83 16:24:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.419
Posted: Tue Aug 16 16:24:58 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 20:45:58 EDT
References: umcp-cs.1857, <931@ittvax.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 23

Heh-heh.  Alan is perfectly right.  We talk about rationality a lot,
and ignore the fact that most intelligent human behavior is not
really rational in nature.  What *is* the reason for selecting
rational behavior as the norm?  For that matter, is there a criterion
for rational behavior, and if so, how is it arrived at?  Surely
not by rational thought, since you can't use it before you've
defined it!

(Aside:  when Prolog programmers are asked why they use Prolog,
after giving the usual arguments and having them struck down,
they wind up by saying "I just *like* logic".  Seems irrational to me)

After thinking about Tom Craver's, Laura Creighton's, and Tim
Maroney's submissions, I discovered that they all had something
interesting in common:  expression of the belief that a proper definition
of rights and freedoms somehow automagically excludes conflicts.
Thelema says the same thing by talking about Will and how
the Wills of different persons can never conflict, by definition.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it all seems pretty mystical
to me...

				stan the leprechaun hacker
				ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)