Karl, some good points about the confusion over what rationality is
... I've pursued the idea of "hyper-rationality" as "autism"
previously .... but I take issue with one point ...
You say "there is not any shared understanding or common agreement
about what the purpose of this list is"
I think we actually have good agreement that the "purpose" of FoW (and
its debate on this list) is to develop and promote the idea that (to
use your words) that the best form of "rationality" is wisdom, where
...
"Wisdom is taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in
life, for oneself
and others, in academic and wider life."
What we are falling out over is not the purpose, but the
practicalities of respectful debate and valid contribution to that
purpose.
Ian
On 3/20/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Nick has written a great deal on the irrationality of "the rational" and has
> also been discussed at length by many philosophers and social theorists,
|