Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Shalom Israel
To see what I'm saying, put "valid" for "rational".

Why? The subject is rationality (def: based on reason), not validity and I think you must agree that the arguments and choices people make are rational to varying degrees.

I have responses yo your other points, but let's do it one at a time. Don't you agree that people make arguments and choices that aren't rational?

544 posted on 03/02/2006 8:21:58 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies ]


To: edsheppa
Why? The subject is rationality (def: based on reason), not validity

For an argument to be rational, it is necessary but not sufficient for the argument to be valid. Very few political arguments turn out to be valid.

Don't you agree that people make arguments and choices that aren't rational?

Arguments: fer sure. I only object to your suggestion that an argument can be a "partly rational." That's on par with "a bit pregnant" or "somewhat dead."

Choices? Is a choice ever "rational"? I think that in this context you are ditching the usual meaning of "rational," and calling a choice "irrational" if you disagree with it. Is my choice in music, food, clothing, a mate, or anything else "rational"? How do you identify the "rational" from the "irrational" choices? Choice is a product of human desire, not human reason.

I'd agree, though, if you'd asked, "Don't people often try to rationalize their choices?" Sure they do, but it's futile. The reason is always, "because I want to." No platonic argument can render a choice inescapable.

545 posted on 03/02/2006 8:28:31 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Blessed is the match.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson