virus: Logic Nazi
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:45:32 EST

In a message dated 2/17/99 12:57:17 PM Central Standard Time, writes:

<< You're welcome to play semantic games. >>

That is one possibility (that I am playing semantic games). Can you think of others?

>>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.<<

No. Justifications all by themselves do not stand in conflict to rationality. They may stand in conflict to each other, and it is at those times that rational criticism can resolve the conflict.

>> Faith, for instance often makes little use of reason and is therefore not a
legitimate basis for action.<<

Faith generally encourages people to ignore conflicting justifications, or proposes that they are not really conflicts (usually in some "mysterious" ways that only "God" thingies understand).

>>We can talk round and round the thesaurus forever.<<

Or you can try to see if there are real concepts at work where you initially only see "semantic games".

>>For you <rationality> is the ultimate discriminator.<<

I prefer coherent meaning to meaninglessness and delusion.

>>We each live in prisons of our own construction.<<

So why not construct it well?

>>Can you imagine standing outside <rationality> and still being "Jake" or is
your persona, your soul, your essence of being dependent on <rationality>?<<

Sure, its called slipping into lazy orthodoxies.

>>Who are you without <reason>?<<

Just another another reflexive (as opposed to reflective) person.

>>>>>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.<<

The first one makes no sense to me.

>>>Everybody's faith is generally going to be compatible with THEIR reason.
>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?


>From my perspective? It's not horrendous, but it is unecessarily limiting. I
do not place limits on what I expect to understand about the universe, nor do I cop out to delusions. Some people feel more comfortable if they do.

BTW, this new aol name "LogicNazi" was created in response to you and Brodie. Its a toungue-in-cheek. Thanks for the inspiration.

-Jake aka "Meme Lab"