Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE conversation re -- Ayn Rand.
Message-ID: <1417@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Nov-83 01:58:49 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1417
Posted: Fri Nov 11 01:58:49 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Nov-83 05:57:18 EST
References: <421@houca.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 94

The basic premise of most Western thought is that there is ONE reality
out there. If you question this one you get some pretty strange results.
I think that this is necessary for a rational philosophy to be workable.

There had better be a 'true' or a 'false' out there. Nowhere have I
read that Rand has said this, and it is the sort of thing that people
don't generally question.  However, if this is not a very good model of
reality then we have had it. 

The next one is rather similar -- it is not sufficient that the one reality
exists out there, but we human beings had better be equipped to perceive
it by means of reason alone. Otherwise, again, we have had it. 

These sorts of things are generally not discussed because they are fundamental
to so much of what everyone does and believes. Most people believe that the
LAW of GRAVITY is real, out there, and true, not merely that it has held
true for the vast majority of recorded instances where it was tested.

I really think of it as a truth myself, you know. I don't expect to start
levitating any moment. But I do not really have much evidence to support
the claim that *all* things work that way. 

And if when 2 people meet, and disagree, there can be 2 rights and 0
wrongs it does not bode very well for the success of a rational philosophy!
In general, one has faith that there is a true reality out there that things
can be measured against, and that there is a 'true' and a 'false' and a
'right' and a 'wrong'. it is a simplifying assumption that you often have
to make to get any useful work done. BUT, it is still out there, unproven,
and probably impossible to prove.

--- on to enjoyment ---

The problem is that I cannot give a rational explanation of why I like
strawberries. (I just like 'em!) So if somebody came by and questioned
my rationality saying that "a truly rational person would not take so
much enjoyment out of strawberries" or "obviously you are supressing
your desire for something else through your love of strawberries" or
whatever somebody who does not like strawberries might say, i am left
holding the bag, wouldn't you say?

Now, there is a person in the office with me who *HATES* all fruit. As
far as he is concerned, i must be seriously derranged or have faulty
tastebuds to eat strawberries. I, of course, think that he is missing
out on one of the chief joys in life.

Now, he not only dislikes the taste of strawberries, but he also hates the
smell. it therefore would be to his advantage to ban all strawberry 
production. After all, you could use all the money that goes into
strawberry production to produce more COKE (foul stuff!) that he likes.

I, on the other hand, could live without his coke. 

Now I recognise that he enjoys coke, and he recognises that I enjoy
strawberries. But what is to stop us from deciding that each is less
rational than the other due to our taste peculiarities? What can
either of us say in our defence? As far as I can see -- nothing.

Whatever makes me like strawberries is probably not rational. I cannot
see that my like or dislike of strawberries would add or lessen my
rationality. Thus I have isolated a class of problems which are not
solvable by rational means.

I resort to other things -- compassion, for instance. I promise to not
eat strawberries in the office or in his apartment, so that he does not
have to smell them or look at them. if he eats dinner with me, though
either in my house or in a restaurant, he is going to have to lump it
if strawberries are on the menu, because I am about 100% likely to
eat them. 

thus we avoid killing each other, through  the use of something other
than reason. I have to use something other than reason all the time to
avoid killing people. It seems a rather crucial part of existance --
finding out what (if anything) you are willing to kill somebody for
and what you are not, and finding out when or when not to give ground
in an argument, and how to resolve difficulties....

Some of these methods work, and some, alas, do not. I get burned in life
as well. But I do not see them as problems with my rationality, so
i doubt that making me more rational will fix the problem. 

How to determine if one is rational and how to improve one's rationality
is another problem which I have never seen adequately discussed. 

Or if there is a relationship between intelligence and rationality? I
don't remember Rand saying anything, but all her heros seem to be pretty
smart people. This is not so good if you are not smart.

Do we have the intellectual capability to live by reason alone (or primarily
by reason)? I don't know. But I do not understand te workings of 4.1bsd
very well, and I have been working at it. I think that the problems of
life, the universe, and everything are a lot tougher than the multiplexer!

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura