Subject: Re: A Philosophical Diversion From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1998/10/13 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3117245629681770@naggum.no> * trashcan@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper") | If you have the time, peruse some of the advocacy groups. | comp.lang.java.advocacy is a good one. You will find lots of | fanaticism and flame wars. I don't need any more _examples_ of apparent or obvious irrationality. it is because of what I have seen already that I wonder why some people engage in it and still think they are rational and want others to believe that they are. as long as you brand it as "religious" or "fanaticism" or other such labels that communicate "there is nothing that can or should be understood here", you will obviously never understand them, either. the other issue that I'm interested in, in this regard, is why certain cultural "pockets" forbid emotive responses in what they want to label "rational behavior". such must be the most repressive and destructive cultures around: given that people _are_ emotional beings, too, there's no wonder so many feel free to _become_ irrational if they feel strongly about something, even if they arrived at it rationally. my point is simply that there is something to be understood from people who engage in "advocacy" and the like. I'm not quite sure what, but I have long since dismissed the arrogant idea that there is _nothing_ to learn from them. ironically, all the evidence suggests that those who refuse to listen are the _least_ rational, because they don't even know or recognize their _own_ emotive responses, and least of all do they realize that the conclusion that somebody is "rational" is fundamentally an emotive response, decided long before you actually hear what they say. (of course, I'm not talking about the mentally ill -- they might even appear rational from an adaptation and survival instinct perspective.) #:Erik