Deron Stewart <deron@direct.ca> wrote:
> Subject: RE: virus: Prisoners my Derrida!
>
> Andreas,
>
> There was another way that you could have responded to this if you
> wanted. Something like:
>
> "Reed, I didn't follow the Bertrand Russell or RAND corporation
> references. Could you flesh out these statements so I can better
> understand what you're trying to say before I respond."
>
> Just a thought.
[snip]
The things that people posted about Russell later on the list were quite interesting. I just happened to find it hilarious that Reed told me I was building strawmen, and in the next sentence went on to erect two himself...
In what way does it invalidate a principle that any number of its adherents didn't follow it?
>
> btw, do you agree with this statement?
>
> "Reason is is an incomplete way of thinking which might lead
> you down the wrong path sometimes."
>
> Seriously, what do you think of that statement?
Hmm. I'd say that the principle to hold nothing sacred and unquestioned is the surest way there is to _not_ take a wrong turn. However, if you by "reason" mean "logic" I quite agree. And of course there is no possible way of avoiding all the wrong turns. I just think that following reason makes it easier to back up and try another path. If you follow faith it's not easy to concede that your faith lead you wrong..
Let's just put one thing straight. I'm talking about "reason" and "faith" as in "keeping all things open to questioning" and "keeping some things not open to questioning on the grounds that they are somehow sacred". Capisce?
-Andreas Engström
(Great Randomness)