From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 05 1999 - 07:42:53 MST
At 08:06 AM 3/5/99 -0600, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>Why are you asking a *pragmatist* for *proof*?
Your subject line? Your introduction?
You wrote:
Max More wrote:
>> Point: Reason is without foundation. (See Bartley's book or my version in
>> the Pancritical Rationalism essay.) Does that destroy rationalism?
>Reason WAS without foundation. Excerpt from a forthcoming work:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This sounds to me like you're going to do more than provide AN argument for
reason, but a FOUNDATIONAL argument for reason. Did I misunderstand your
project?
>The argument in favor of logic and reason is by no means certain, but it
>is better than anything else. If you try to deny all arguments as
>invalid, you wind up with a theory that provides no useful advice, and
>thus - however probable - cancels out of decision making. That's all
>anyone has to argue.
Anyway, this isn't even true. Why can't I accept some non-rational or even
irrational claim about how I should live my life? Why not live by instinct
alone, adopt a Zen philosophy, and reject logic altogether?
-Dan
-IF THE END DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS-
-THEN WHAT DOES-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:15 MST