virus: Being and Time

Reed Konsler (
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:41:10 -0500

>Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:57:58 -0500
>From: "Eric Boyd" <>
>Subject: virus: Reason
>Well, first off, it's clear to me that a jump from "stronger, more
>resillient arguments" to "ones current world view" is a VERY large
>jump. I can easily use reason to support conclusions I disagree with,
>in fact I often do. (it is often quite constructive to create as
>strong an argument as you can for a conclusion you disagree with; this
>is often called playing the Devil's Advocate. Subsequent work on
>refuting the argument can often shed light on details you otherwise
>would have missed, and sometimes you even end in convincing
>yourself!). I am saying that a better definition for the
>*justificational* role of reason would be:

Totally. But you should think about what it means to be a "Devil's Advocate". Ask David. Do you really BELIEVE the arguments you forward, or are you providing a counterpoint for the purpose of exposition? I would hope that, in the end, a "Devil's Advocate" would be willing to bow out at the last moment. But, then, I'm a sap who likes it when the good guys win. I take your point, though.

>"Reason is a disciplined way of thinking, one of it's purposes is to
>provide justification for belief in the conclusion of the argument[s]

But now it's confusing enough that you have to read it a few times. It depends upon the resolution of your analysis. In the end, God has over 6 billion names, and each one different in a unique way. Sometimes you have to use short-hand; unless you really want to be a professional philosopher Have you read Hegel: complex, convoluted, dry as an old bone and intricately differentiated. Depends on taste, I guess. Just don't claim to be more rigorous than you really are, hmm?

>However, as I said earlier, this is only one half of reason; the other
>half being the "falsificationist" or rational critism component, which
>is used exactly opposite to the above:

Could you expand on that?


  Reed Konsler