virus: Re: virus-digest V3 #46

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:53:34 -0500

>Rationality is not an authority. It is a criticial process that I subject my
>authorities to. Reasons are authoritative justifications, and if they survive
>rational criticism, I can call them reasonable justifications. People can
>have different reasonable justifications than I do. We all start in media
>res, and others are going to have different starting positions from me,
>therefore I would expect that their authoritative reasons will be somewhat

You're welcome to play semantic games. Describe it as a "critical process" or whatever...<Rationality> is the judge of all things according to your worldview. Justifications which stand in contrast to (or simply make no use of) rationality are not "authoritative"...or legitimate. Faith, for instance
often makes little use of reason and is therefore not a legitimate basis for action.

We can talk round and round the thesaurus forever. For you <rationality> is the ultimate discriminator. We each live in prisons of our own construction. Can you imagine standing outside <rationality> and still being "Jake" or is your persona, your soul, your essence of being dependent on <rationality>? Who are you without <reason>?

>>>Being a slave to <reason> leads inevitably to delusion.
>No. Hiding from rational criticism leads inevitably to delusion.

I agree with both statements. They are not in contradiction.

>Reed, you are a hoot. Your attempts "feel my anxieties" are laughable.

At least you're entertained.

>Everybody's faith is generally going to be compatible with THEIR reason. The
>point that makes it faith and thus irrational, is that they do not hold their
>articles of faith in principle (or in practice either) open to rational
>criticism. Not that they don't hold anything open to rational criticism.

I'll fiat. So what? What is wrong with that?


  Reed Konsler