Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:17:08 +0100
Andrew,
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew_Russell/FS/KSGÉksg.harvard.edu
<Andrew_Russell/FS/KSGÉksg.harvard.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqdÉmail.hkg.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 03:38
Subject: LS Reconciling rational with non-rational
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Struan, I think we misunderstand each other at a deeper, simpler level than
>I first thought.
>
-----------------------------------------------
I agree
-----------------------------------------------
>The world is not exclusively rational. The world is not exclusively
>non-rational.
>Do you agree?
-----------------------------------------------
Yes
----------------------------------------------
>The search for an ethical system is a search to create a rational form of
>judging the ethical value of all phenomena. Yet all phenomena do not fit
>into rational or non-rational categories. So we are left with a dilemma of
>epic proportions, which is how to judge spontaneous actions (which are not
>always rational) bynon-rational criterai.
>Do you agree?
------------------------------------------------
No. All phenomena do fit into rational or non-rational categories. The term
non-rational includes all that is not rational and so taken as a pair they
are by definition exclusive. Note that this is not the same as saying that
mind and matter taken together are exclusive but it would be the same as
saying mind and non-mind taken together are exclusive. Also an ethical
system does not have to be rational.
------------------------------------------------
>Therefore in the attempt to create this system, we can see how both
>rational and non-rational factors can be useful.
>Do you agree?
--------------------------------------------------
No because I disagree with your premise as I have said above.
--------------------------------------------------
>
>Do you believe in the phenomena that Christians call "God"? I realize this
> is a difficult question, but do you believe the entire universe can
> be explained in rational terms?
---------------------------------------------------
No and no. Those are two entirely separate questions.
----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Do you believe that everyhting is rational and reducible to a system of
> thought that we, at the end of the 20th century, can understand? Or
> do you believe that there are some things which escape our intellect
> and escape rationality and we cannot explain away simply and clearly?
>
-----------------------------------------------------
The latter
-----------------------------------------------------
> As for your rhetoric: I am from America, I went to school here and
also for
> six months at the University of Sussex, in Brighton. I studied 20th
> century social and economic British history. If you are stating what
> YOU believe is correct, then use the appropriate pronoun: I, not WE.
> For the MoQ very much concerns my ethical search, and therefore your
> assertion in your first email is incorrect.
>
-----------------------------------------------------
We must agree to disagree. I will continue to use the appropriate pronoun
in all arguments, however I will not use in reply to you if you find it
offensive. I fail to see why you view it as such, but out of respect I will
refrain.
----------------------------------------------------
>I welcome your intellectual challenge to the Lila Squad. Discussion of
> these issues is good. To reduce all of these issues to
>
>rational human language is inaccurate. If this is the purpose of the
> discussion you initiated, I will no longer participate. I am looking
> for a more inclusive answer.
>
----------------------------------------------------
But the reduction to rational human language is precisely what you are
trying to do and precisely what I am pointing out that you are doing and
precisely the root of my objection.
This is a forum which only allows communication by language. All I have done
is point out that you are being non-rational at which point you try to
rationalise your irrationality as if you take my observation as an insult.
But you clearly state yourself that, "To reduce all of these issues to
rational human language is inaccurate." So why do you attempt to do so.
I hope I'm being clear here but maybe I'm not, so I shall put it another
way.
Be proud of your irrationality. If I say that your position is unreasonable,
then say, "Thank you very much, I'm glad you understand," rather than
launching into a pseudo-reasoned argument against me. We agree that
rationality
isn't everything and we both see the value of irrationality, where we differ
is that I think your attempt to rationalise irrational things is doomed to
failure.
----------------------------------------------------
>
>I hope I haven't created any feelings of personal animosity. That was most
> certainly not my intention. But I will continue to resist that which
> I perceive to not be true.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
None whatsoever. I enjoy nothing more (well few things more) than a good
debate with intelligent
people and am enjoying this immensely.
Struan
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST