Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:08:56 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@#antispam#novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1517 times
|
| |
|
|
Good point
Sproaticus wrote:
> This seriously bothers me. There are too many people here arguing for a
> system of complete rational thought, for me to discount it. Personally, I'm
> all for a balance between rational and irrational, between objectivity and
> subjectivity. But for purposes of this debate, I *really* want to see a good
> case in favor of total rationalism, and / or total objectivity. Otherwise,
> it's just another volley of "pot, kettle, black" -- right back atcha.
But is it a dichotomy or a trichotomy. (rational/irrational vs.
rational/not rational/irrational)... I'd say the latter.
As I was alluding to in a different portion of the thread, I can have
and enjoy emotions without letting them rule me. Emotions are non
rational, not irrational. Letting emotions control me is irrational.
Using intuition is non rational. Using intuition as my only factor
without rationally weighing the alternatives is irrational.
As to where to start, again, I chicken out from a full derivation and
point to Rand, who built a pretty good system starting from Aristotle's
A is A. It may have holes. I'm open to rational arguments. It satisfied
me, and I didn't need any little voices for it. It satisfied me because
it told me to go ahead and believe the evidence of my senses, and
because it fit the experimental evidence. I grant that it does not
independently verify the validity of logic or that cause and effect
actually work. (G<o-umlaut>del's theorem and all that)
BTW Subjectivity is not necessarily IRrational.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes [and I re-arranged]: (...) Ooh. It appears that my argument has no support for such a trichotomy. My kneejerk reaction is that you're pointing out a flaw in my semantics rather than my logic, but (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Ayn Rand's philosophy is not a derivation, or long list of concepts implying one another out of thin air with "Logic" hopefully proved true at some point in the chain. If you have to refer to Godel for supplemental reading, you don't get (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I thought the anti-religion stance states that the last refuge of religion is to convert people by the sword. But again, quite sarcastically, I digress... (...) But that's still subjective, isn't it? The interpretation of this data is still (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
