Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houca!trc
From: trc@houca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: ity vs izing
Message-ID: <416@houca.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Oct-83 19:13:55 EST
Article-I.D.: houca.416
Posted: Fri Oct 28 19:13:55 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Nov-83 02:31:06 EST
Organization: American Bell, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 29

Response to Laura Creighton:

I agree that I was defining the commonly used meaning of rationalize - which 
was what Stan was asking for, I believe.  It is a shame for a good word to 
be used for a concept that is nearly opposite to what it should mean.

You state that you have trouble with my definition because you will not be
able to tell the difference between being rational and rationalizing, as you
do it.  I think that it *is* possible to tell the difference.  And not being 
able to distinguish right away does not necessarily invalidate the definition 
- it merely means that it might be a complex thing to analyze.

However, to get practical, how can one tell that one is, or commonly does,
rationalize?  One simple sign, that can be detected by introspection, is if 
one was not sure why one was doing the thing, until one thought about it 
afterwards.  This indicates that one did not bother to think about it.  The 
indications is (generally that one did the thing, disregarding justification, 
and looked for justification after.  (Note that making a decision is "doing"
something too.)

When one rationalizes, it is usually because one believes, in a first 
reaction, that one has done something wrong.  The honest person would then
examine the decision, and decide whether it was right or wrong, independent
of the fact that it has been done.  The dishonest rationalizer will examine 
the decision for reasons that it was right, only incidentally thinking about 
(and dismissing) any objections that might pop into his head.

	Tom Craver
	houca!trc