Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Logic, fact, preference [Part 2]
Message-ID: <310@umich.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 15:32:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.310
Posted: Wed Oct 23 15:32:48 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 08:08:34 EDT
References: <305@umich.UUCP> <28200184@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 83
Keywords: top 25 news submitters or bust!
Summary: this article is shorter.  Why can't I be more like Rich Rosen?

In article <28200184@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>>>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. [TOREK]
>
>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).  [NRH]

But, on your hypothesis, the other reasons in that person's mind are
illusory.  Therefore, when you try to convince him to change his preferences
(note, not his beliefs, his preferences), there is something weird going on.
You are asking him to do something which, if he accepted something else you
believe and have argued for (about reason and preference), he would not do.
It is as if the person were a creationist, and you were trying to get him to
believe in evolution on the basis that God, in which you did not believe,
is such that He likes to see things evolve.

>>>>>>You are confusing "irrational" with "nonrational".  [TOREK]
>
>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) 

OK, love is irrational under definition (b), and SOME people in love are
irrational under definition a(2).  But not ALL people.  Therefore, there is
still a distinction here, even though, contrary to what I thought, 
"nonrational" counts as a species of "irrational".  "Nonrational" refers
to whatever satisfies definition (b).  Let's use "contrary to reason" to
replace what I thought "irrational" meant.  Now, an emotion would be
"contrary to reason" if ALL people all the time satisfied a(2) when they
had that emotion.

>Since the distinction may not exist (at least, not using dictionary 
>definitions of the word "irrational"), let's drop it

Since the distinction does exist (I was just wrong about the words), let's
not.

>>>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?  

It doesn't matter to the way I'll make up my mind.  But it does matter to
the attitude I'll take toward my interlocutor.  Again, I think other people
will feel similarly (if they are aware of your stance).

>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.

Try: "a person must agree with me about reason before I would be willing
to accept any argument WHICH HE PUTS FORWARD ON THE BASIS OF HIS VIEWS
ABOUT REASON."

>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.

Yup, something like 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 advances an argument...

Fair enough.  (But subject to the caveats above.)

--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief			torek@umich