Subject:
|
Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:11:29 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@IO.COMavoidspam
|
Viewed:
|
1850 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I would contend that to throw out all emotions as not suitable for a
> rational being is to go too far. Emotions serve at least two good
> purposes:
> - they're inputs. They give us valuable insight into our subconscious,
> as well as insight into our bodies
Rational.
> - they're enjoyable. That's a good thing in and of itself
Irrational.
*Why* is it enjoyable? *Why* is it good? Is it or is it not necessary?
These questions can't be adequately and rationally explained, at least not
with modern medicine. And I'm willing to bet <RUMMAGE SRC="POCKETS" /> $.06
that it never will be explained in a rational manner.
> We must not be ruled by emotion, we must use it rather than letting it
> use us.
A balance between rationality and irrationality.
> Rand explained it a lot better than I can.
Ayn? I've been wanting to crack one of her books open for a while, but
they're so dang long...
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Card-carrying member of the Star-Bellied Sneech Preservation Society
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
