X-Message-Number: 10289
From: "Timur Rozenfeld" <>
Subject: Rationality
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:58:29 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Timur Rozenfeld says that:

>>Values don't need to be rational, but if you value your life
>>and wish to enhance it, it is in your interest that they be

>Not necessarily.  That depends on what constitutes "enhancing" your life.
>Again, this is a subjective judgement, not an objective one.

A judgement can still be personal and objective. Otherwise anything anybody 
judges is equal as its all "subjective". If you have a train =

heading toward you, the objectively valid judgement, if you wish to enhance or 
save your life, would be to get out of the way.

>As for rationality being an axiom, I don't think so.

If it isn't, then it can only be derived from something else that is.  The
world rests on the back of a turtle, but there's turtles all the way down
<g>.  At some point, you have to make an unprovable assumption.

I agree. The unprovable assumptions are called axioms. They are axioms because 
they are directly perceivable from reality and attempt to =

disprove them presupposes them. Existence is an axiom, because before anyone 
opens their mouth or think a thought to argue against it, they =
already know they exist. It would be invalid to call that faith.

>The virtue of rationality can clearly be shown to enhance your

Not at all, until you've defined "enhance" clearly, and this (like any
other word) cannot be done nonaxiomatically.

You gotta have faith in somethin'...

You can define enhance clearly, if you work at it, and would not accepting that 
you exist and are conscious to be faith, they are =
axiomatic though.

Timur Rozenfeld

Content-Type: text/html;


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10289