Tex in Tex's definitions
Derived from the Middle English 'libertyn' meaning 'freedman,' which came from the Latin root 'liber,' which means 'liberty.' Libertine was a derogatory term which referred to someone who was a free-thinker or non-believer. Until the 19th Century, atheists or agnostics were considered beyond the pale of reasonable or civilized people. The term was extended to describe people who lacked moral self-restraint. Being a libertine was associated with living as an animal or an uncivilized person. John Stuart Mill's dictum, "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" applies as a condemnation of the libertine.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Fool: I am a libertarian. I smoke dope, watch pornography, and have sex with anything not nailed down. I love liberty as did the Founding Fathers.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
by Tex in Tex March 8, 2008
Get the libertine mug.United States nineteenth century general most well-known for his leadership of the Federal "Western" army in 1864-1865 during the American Civil War. He also fought against Indians in the American West after the war.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General William T. Sherman meeting Yasser Arafat in Hell: "Good job killing those innocent people...You got what you wanted from the killings...I did the same in Atlanta in 1864."
by Tex in Tex February 2, 2008
Get the General William T. Sherman mug.The word 'liberal' is derived from the Latin word 'libertas,' meaning 'liberty.' Liberalism started in 17th Century Europe as a logical and historical development from Protestantism with its focus on an individual having a direct personal relationship with God. Liberalism is also rooted in the English tradition of individual rights and privileges. John Locke's *Second Treatise on Civil Government* articulated the basic principles of liberalism--limited government, private property, equality before the law, the rule of law (meaning an impartial application and enforcement of the broad-based laws that allow for a wide scope of private discretion), and some democratic influence to restrict those in power. Locke, himself a Protestant Christian, believed people to be naturally sinful and selfish, but rational and social enough so that they could peacefully interact with one another. Laws are needed to maintain order, but largely the State should be restricted only to protecting private property (broadly defined as a person's private sphere), and to enforce contracts. The Founders of the United States were all followers of Locke. Jefferson's *Declaration of Independence* is an American adaptation of Locke's basic political philosophy. Puritan John Milton's defense of free speech in his *Areopagitica* provided the intellectual justification of the First Amendment from a Christian metaphysic.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
"I am a liberal, they are socialists." Milton Friedman distinguishing himself from leftist liberals.
by Tex in Tex January 18, 2008
Get the liberal mug.The Italian sociologist living in the early 20th Century observed that the distribution of wealth and income remains roughly the same in modern industrialized societies no matter what governmental policies are pursued. A corollary of the Iron Law is the "circulation of elites" where groups vie to be the dominant group under various guises including equality and social justice, but there is always an elite no matter what.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Let's pass legislation to make a more equal, fairer society.
Conservative realist: That will get us no where except you leftists will be in power rather than us. There is the brutal fact of Pareto's Iron Law. We cannot escape inequality of result.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Well, I know, but at least we will be ahead of you conservatives. We hate you because you do not love everyone as we leftists do.
Conservative realist: That will get us no where except you leftists will be in power rather than us. There is the brutal fact of Pareto's Iron Law. We cannot escape inequality of result.
Liberal elitist humanitarian: Well, I know, but at least we will be ahead of you conservatives. We hate you because you do not love everyone as we leftists do.
by Tex in Tex February 25, 2008
Get the Pareto's Iron Law mug.Katie Scarlett O'Hara is the main character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* In the story, Scarlett is the oldest daughter of an Irish/Catholic immigrant and his French aristocratic wife in mid-nineteenth century Georgia. The family builds an opulent plantation they name Tara just south of Atlanta in Jonesboro. Scarlett loves her father and her home but is otherwise completely self-absorbed.
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.
The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"
Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will I go, what will I do?"
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Get the Scarlett O'Hara mug.In purely logical terms, this phrase is irrational since it is redundant. I am assuming that 'liberal' in this context means social democrat or socialist, not classical liberal.
"Those liberal scum are at it again trying to force us to live in the patterns they prefer--equality with everyone except the liberals who lord it over us all."
by Tex in Tex February 5, 2008
Get the Liberal Scum mug.Cognitive rationality is matching one's beliefs with reality. Instrumental rationality is choosing effective means to achieve one's goals. Achieving one's goals in the real world necessarily demands that one's beliefs be consistent with the independent reality that stands over against us. Teleological rationality is choosing the right goals as established by the objective moral order ordained by God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Listen to the voice of reason...it might be calling to you where you least expect it...Rationality is simply listening to reality.
by Tex in Tex February 6, 2008
Get the rationality mug.