Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Logic, fact, preference [Part 2] Message-ID: <28200184@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 19:53:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200184 Posted: Mon Oct 21 19:53:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 07:15:06 EDT References: <305@umich.UUCP> Lines: 129 Nf-ID: #R:umich:-30500:inmet:28200184:000:6584 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Oct 21 19:53:00 1985 >/* Written 1:17 am Oct 19, 1985 by torek@umich in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Logic, fact, preference [Part 2" ---------- */ >Even number of >'s = me, torek, Odd number = Nat Howard (nrh@inmet): > >>>>>Fine, but nobody else is going to listen to you either, except the "already >>>>>converted", so to speak. >>> >>I was "devastated" because I don't believe you... > >They aren't going to listen for the reasons I gave (>>) below. > I assume you mean this: >>>True, but, as I pointed out before, changing one's preferences is >>>uncomfortable. So while you may not NEED a reason to have them >>>respond to logic, you HAVE one to have your preferences NOT respond >>>to logic -- on the (hypothetical) hypothesis that preferences are >>>by nature nonrational. As I've pointed out, the fact that there's a reason NOT to change your preferences doesn't mean that there is ONLY that reason in someone's mind. (If you were right, nobody would EVER change his mind). >>>>>You are confusing "irrational" with "nonrational". Love is nonrational >>> >>>>[Romeo and Juliet example] >>> >>>Gimme a break. Obviously love played a role in such errors, but wiser >>>people could have made wiser choices -- even while feeling just as power- >>>ful feelings. To make an analogy, consider the definition of courage not >>>as absence of fear, but as keeping one's head in the face of fear. >> >>Let's consider Romeo and Juliet as being strangers (with but mild good >>intentions towards each other). Can you imagine Romeo taking any >>important step that was predicated on Juliet being dead without >>examining the "corpse"? Possible I suppose, but so unlikely..... > >The point being, love can crowd out rationality? True, it *can* (but not: >it *must*), and so *can* fear -- now see above on courage. If love makes one act contrary to what one's reasoned actions would be in the absence of love, love makes one irrational. If love does not follow reason, love is irrational. Don't like it? Tough: ir-ra-tio-nal .. adj: ... a(1): not endowed with reason or understanding a(2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason (~ fears) c: (Greek and Latin Prosody (1) of a syllable): having a quantity other than that required by the meter c(2) (of a foot): containing such a syllable d(1): being an irrational number (an ~ root of an equation) d(2): having a numerical value that is an irrational number (a length that is ~) .... Forgive me, folks, for posting all the text of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, pp 606, but I wanted to avoid any wiggling. You will note in particular, that the things you're calling "nonrational" are irrational. >>Take it one level up. It was surely contrary to reason for Romeo and >>Juliet to love one another. > >Perhaps. Not so obvious. If so, it would be rational to try to stop being >in love, which is presumably possible though definitely not easy. This >just shows my point -- that love is NONrational -- not yours -- that it is >IRrational. > >[The discussion on love isn't very related to the rest, considering that I >just offered love as an example of something that is nonrational but not >irrational, thus illustrating my distinction. Since the example was >controversial, it wasn't a very good illustration. If you want to continue >the discussion on love, can we break it off into a separate set of postings? >Also, that way we could post it to (say) .philosophy and .singles?] Since the distinction may not exist (at least, not using dictionary definitions of the word "irrational"), let's drop it >>>True, but, as I pointed out before, changing one's preferences is >>>uncomfortable. So while you may not NEED a reason to have them respond to >>>logic, you HAVE one to have your preferences NOT respond to logic -- on the >>>(hypothetical) hypothesis that preferences are by nature nonrational. >> >>My point was that my arguing with you is a rational act even if I believe >>your preferences have no ultimate basis in logic. Especially if you >>BELIEVE your beliefs to be grounded in reason, reason may have an impact. > >In other words, you'll use this belief against me, pretending when it's >convenient that you share it? Ideological mystification! Paul, if you maintain your beliefs are rational and I can show a contradiction in them, or a flaw in your reasoning, it hardly matters what *I* believe about them, does it? I'm hardly trying to be mystifying, but I don't need to SHARE your beliefs to apply them and maybe show you some new things about them (including that they may be incorrect). If you're saying: "A person must agree with me about reason before I would be willing to change my beliefs because of something he said", you're being rather pig-headed. It means that you have discovered a set of beliefs incapable of being shaken by reason, unless the reason is given you by a fellow-believer. Now who's engaging in mystification? After all, I don't insist that people talking to me share my beliefs before I'll listen to them, and perhaps change my beliefs, but aren't you doing this? >>That your irrational preference for your own beliefs (if your beliefs >>are truly irrational) will work against me doesn't mean that some other >>force (perhaps a desire to have an open mind and to stick with reason >>where possible) will more than overcome it. > >I think it does, given that I'll take any reasoning you offer with a HUGE >grain of salt! (And, I think, any not-already-converted reader who has >read the above will also.) Feel free! Feel free! But take what reasoning I offer as just that, reasoning. It doesn't matter who said the Earth is round: such things can be checked. It doesn't matter WHO advances an argument, or WHY he did it -- what matters (insofar as changing your beliefs) is whether that person is right. If my reasoning is correct, it's hardly right to fault it because I believe reason is not the fundamental principle upon which I base my beliefs. It would be like saying that because somebody doesn't subscribe to your notions about plotting, you wouldn't read a story by him. You can CHECK the story, you can tell if you're entertained, and it doesn't matter if the person at the other end of the publishing cycle is someone you agree with or not. What matters is what he wrote. Naturally, you may wish he agreed with you, naturally, you may be worried that his controversial plot ideas may weaken the story, but that DOESN'T affect how good the story before you is. Read it and see.