Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houca!trc
From: trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: The BIG QUESTION
Message-ID: <381@houca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Aug-83 17:50:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: houca.381
Posted: Mon Aug 29 17:50:38 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Aug-83 22:07:42 EDT
Lines: 52

Response to Laura Creighton:

Your points are mostly in agreement with my ideas on the topic. I might
clear up 3a - it is not "Not understanding" rationality, but actually
the irrationality that might arise from trying to act in that manner 
that would give rise to a rights conflict.  And in point 3c, it should
be ideally be a case of not really knowing that there is additional
information of importance.  However if, due to pressures of time,
one must act, it is possible to act rationally even knowing that
one does not have all the necessary information yet.  (Sometimes any
action taken is better than no action at all.)  On 3d, my statements
about rationally avoiding calamities can be taken as short term, as you
imply (to avoid dangerous situations, one must recognize the dangers),
or on the long term, as inventions reduce the likelihood of dangers.
(The new dangers of a jet plane crash are actually *reduced* from the 
dangers that would have been experienced, say in driving cross country.)

OK: The BIG QUESTION:

Since the rational capability seems to be in-born, I presume that it is
genetic, and like so many other genetic factors, must be used in order
to stay strong.  What would it mean for rationality to vary from person
to person?   Even supposing that it somehow did (and this is the real
answer to your question), there is a final test of rationality - and
that is reality, and the success of one's independent actions therein.
I do not mean that one has to do everything from scratch, etc, but
simply that it is possible to determine, from reality, whether one is
basically living off of others, or supporting one's self by one's own
productivity.  Not just material productivity, and not just mental
efforts that lead to material productivity, but I would also include
the realm that is commonly called "the spirit".  If one is not being
psychologically independent, one is not producing one's "soul", but is
letting others do it for one - a sort of mental parasitism.

In short, one can tell from the success at achieving *valid* goals
(and I claim that self-interest is the way to determine those)
whether someone is being rational.  It is here that intelligence enters
in - it is also possible to tell, from past examples of performance,
just how much intelligence a person has to bring to the task of exercising
their rational capabilities.  If one sees an intelligent person just
getting by, one can usually judge fairly that that person is not really
exercising their rational abilities to the fullest extent.  Again, I am 
not speaking only of materially getting by - one's intelligence applied 
rationally can help one equally well in the "spiritual" realm.  In fact, 
it is even more crucial here, because one cannot so easily live off the 
productivity of others, as a robber might in the material realm.  The
robber can steal the best that civilization has produced.  This is not
possible in the realm of the mind - one really does have to work at that 
one's self, or else the product is a sham, and easily detected as such.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc