Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reason gets no respect from Berman
Message-ID: <28200463@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 23:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200463
Posted: Mon Dec 30 23:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jan-86 05:38:58 EST
References: <1538@hound.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:hound:-153800:inmet:28200463:000:1276
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 30 23:06:00 1985


[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka]
>First, a question: do you value yourself because of your ability to reason,
>or do you value your ability to reason because you value yourself?  If
>the answer is the former, then your basic principle is not selfishness;
>it is love of reason.  I will assume the latter for the remainder of this.

Now that I re-read several of Laura's responses, I feel that  the
*former*  is  much  nearer to her point of view. The basic motive
*is* love of reason.

This  attitude  may  be rightly called rational *selfishness* for
two reasons: (1) someone who holds it  is  necessarily  rational,
therefore  has  something  to  love in herself; (2) one knows the
operations of one's own reason far more completely and intimately
than anyone else's: hence, a tendency to love oneself first. How-
ever, it would follow that if one gets convinced  someone  else's
reason far exceeds one's own; and if one somehow obtains an inti-
mate knowledge of its workings; then one may (selfish or not) love
another *more* than oneself.

I wonder if Laura agrees with this, and with this  interpretation
of her views in general. I also wonder what she thinks of Spinoza
whose ethical teaching seems to have a lot in common with hers.

                        Jan Wasilewsky