From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:33:03 GMT

>>>>>>I agree with you on this, although I think I weight the heart more than you. 
>>>>								^^^^
>>>>					The feelings are implied here
>>>>					to be not all-important, but
>>>>					important.
>>>So?  That would require your assuming that I don't consider feelings
>>>important at all.  Feelings stem from something.  They don't come out
>>>of thin air, so to speak.  You may say you don't know why you feel
>>>a certain way, but there is a reason.
>>You can't prove that to me.  Again, reason is insufficient.
>Reason is insufficient because you don't understand the reason?  Can't
>help you there.
No.  Reason is insufficient because it can't grasp all ideas completely.  If you can give me a completely rational proof for why I love my girlfriend, then 
please do so.  Understanding denotess reason.  Again, there is a *cause* for my
love of her.  It need not be rational, and ratrionality cannot define and 
explain it sufficiently.

>>>You're going to have to go some to convince me that love has no cause or
>>>purpose.  At the very least, love has as a goal protecting or maintaining
>>>some sort of contact with that which you love.
>>Wait.  Love's goal is to stay incontact with those you love?  So the goal of
>>eating is to stay in contact with food?  or is it to stay alive?
>I've never been romantically involved with something I ate.  Or at least
>something I intended to digest.  Further, "love" of a particular food may
>very well incite one to get in contact with it.  I've never personally
>been able to eat food without its coming in contact with me.
Huh?  Never been romantic with food?  Of course not.  You're bobbing.  I 
compared the action of loving with the action of eating.  I did not imply that 
one includes the other.  I eat to be fed, to keep my body alive.  Why do I love?
>>Love's goal can't be love....not Logically, anyway.

>Love is a pleasant thing, for the most part.  Part of experiencing a
>pleasant thing is often wanting it to persist.  Love is a drive, and that
>drive serves a purpose in both psychological and physical reactions,
>all of which themselves serve a purpose in continuance and security and
>productivity of the species.  I don't know what could be clearer than
>that concept.  And the adherence to logic in the pursuit and continuance
>of love is a necessary means of reducing any negative outcomes of it.
Well....whatever you say.  Love *means* something to me, but I suppose you
deny the existence of meaning which is not entirly rational, but that is 
because it exists outside of reason's room, a room which I caould argue you 
are locked in.  I hate sounding liek a religion dork, because I am not one.  
But telling me my love is 'reasonable' and 'rational' feels like telling me it
is meaningless and cold.  That feeling is significant.  MAybe it isn't rational.
Oh, well.
>>
>>>Yeah, I don't buy this at all.  It may be that an individual doesn't necessarily
>>>have the knowledge sufficient to explain it, but I don't buy that there is
>>>no cause and effect or basis for love.  I mean, it sounds wonderfully
>>>romantic and all, but in my opinion, love that has no basis or purpose or
>>>goal or reason at all, as you seem to suggest, may be considered insane.
>>>Not that I don't respect your opinion or find any danger in your view,
>>>however.
>>I never said there was no cause.  I said there was no LOGICAL cause.  Nothing
>>that can be explained by reason, precisely because we have insufficient 
>>knowledge to explain it, and never can.  But I appreciate your respect of my
>>view, and feel respect for yours as well.
>>You'd also be hard pressed to isolate a logical reason.  Let's replace the noun
>>reason with cause.  A cause can, in my view, not be a rational one.

>I'm hard pressed to isolate logical reasons for lots of things.  That's why
>psychiatry and physics are difficult.  And that's why people still strive
>for the reasons with the assumption that they exist.  Because by finding
>out what the "reason" or "logic" of the systems are, they better understand
>the world and can better predict its behavior.  This is the foundation
>of the sciences.  And, I might add, the foundations of art.  Great artists
>have been discovering things about their methods and results all through
>history.  It would be difficult to point out any competent artist that
>has no knowledge or skill of their craft that is based on some system
>that succeeds for them.
Sheesh.  And they never cry about it, never feel anything transcendent, and
are basically cold.  Emotion is just part of the computer program of our DNA.
>>
>>>How could you "come to grips" with anything without giving it thought?
>>>If it's soul-searching, what form would this take?  At the very least,
>>>you might conclude that something somewhere, of which you might not
>>>even be aware, causes you to "feel" a certain way -- confident, happy,
>>>secure, relieved, tense, anxious, whatever -- and this becomes a "given"
>>>in your evaluation of the value of choosing to believe something.
>>Again, I assert that not all 'thought' it rationalism or at all rational.
>That's right.  Not all thought is rational when a contary goal is assumed.
>The thought is, however, the logical outcome of a system of wants, desires,
>and drives that pre-existed.  More David Hume, here.
Well, I think Hume was not correct so we are gonna have a problem here.

>Reasoning with
>respect to the goal chosen as being of primary importance will enable to
>make value judgements as to which actions will further that goal.  The
>reasons that a person may act contrary to this goal that's determined to
>be most important can be examined.  If one asserts that their goals or
>drives come from nowhere and are out of their control, that would be
>an excuse for not thinking.  And not thinking tends to produce non-
>optimal results.  Rash behavior, immature actions, impractical decisions,
>lack of long-term happiness, irresponsibility, etc., etc..  That's why
>the excuse, "we were young and in love," conjures up images of foolishness
>as well as bliss and generally doesn't make a good defense in court.
So?  Does it make someone happy?  Were they actually in love?  Is 'optimality'
your reason to exist?  Not mine.  Why is it that I expect you next post to 
include such phrases as "resistance is useless" and "you will be assimilated?"

Clinging pathetically to meaning,
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa