[FoRK] Lion, rationality, reason, and seriousness

Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> on Mon May 7 10:33:57 PDT 2007

On May 7, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Lion Kimbro wrote:

>  The way I look at it, we *have* to see "passion," desire,  
> imagination,
>  interest, love, joy, care, inspiration, emotion, aesthetic, the  
> sensation
>  of "being free," as the motivating force driving reason &  
> rationality.
>
>  It's fundamentally **impossible** for "Reason" itself to be the  
> motivator
>  for reason.  At best, we could romanticize, and **imagine** that  
> Reason
>  were a person, (perhaps seeing Harry Seldon sitting atop his  
> computronium
>  planet,) and ask ourselves, "Well, WWRD?  (What would Reason Do?)",
>  and reason from that inspiration.

So, to save the notion of reason from (simultaneously) a circular  
definition *and* romanticization, we have to define it  in  
romanticized-warm-fuzzy-subjective-impossible-to-quantify terms?

Does this *really* make sense to you?

How about this:  start with a function;  call it "the utility  
function..."


jb


More information about the FoRK mailing list