10-17-2011, 02:10 PM
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
Sometimes the philosophy major in me probably gets overly niggley about certain things - like what is rational. When you move beyond logic (which really is just bunch of rules about assessing when thinking is valid and sound) then values enter into the picture and then what becomes rational or irrational depends on what value judgments you make. IOW, what is considered rational becomes much more relative to your value system and less about objectively following rules of logic.
If the Democrats cannot overcome issues like the Senate filibuster to raise taxes enough to get sufficient funding for Medicare, then what is the reasonable thing for Democrats to do?
I really don't want to dive to deeply into this philosophical debate, but there's a compelling argument to be made that once you enter the realm of human activity (and leave that of abstracted mathematics), logic is thoroughly embedded in values, and its use without attachment to moral valuation is nonsensical. See the Frankfurt School (Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc.) and other critical theorists for details.
Well, one reasonable thing would be to stop demonizing the opposition and positioning Republicans as essentially and permanently antithetical to truth, justice, and the American way. To remain committed, in the face of Realpolitik threats, to painful and risky compromises that carry political costs. To acknowledge that personal reelection and individual political careers are sometimes the cost of good political action.
But those rest on a 'rationality' that puts the good of the people above the good of the politician, or the party. So is it really rational at all?
Here's what I said earlier: "I get the sense that I tend to tilt much more heavily toward the 'logical' orientation of its potential meanings and you more to the "reasoning" orientation." I haven't claimed that rationality must be devoid of value, but I do think that on a continuum I tend to prefer rationality to refer to statements that are logically coherent even if they do contain value assessments. To me, claims that are logical contradictions should be considered quite irrational (and that is what the Republican candidates in the debate were saying).
The article cited in the OP was just pointing out that the candidates in the debate were claiming contradictory things which doesn't make sense. I don't see that as making them out to be evil. I mean, shouldn't one be able to point out that what someone is saying is a logical contradiction without that being characterized as demonizing them? Well, the author did say that it will make your head hurt, but I don't think that is much of a demonization.
As to your last question. The answer to the question depends entirely on value assessments and not at all on logic. Which brings us back to my statement, "I get the sense that I tend to tilt much more heavily toward the 'logical' orientation of its potential meanings and you more to the "reasoning" orientation."