From: Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hi,
> >
> > yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any
> > in the
> > faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then
> > reality
> > is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of
> > possibilities
> > (and only this one) could be found ?
> >
> > Quentin

Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 21:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about
> relative absurdity and justification?
> Tom Caylor

From: Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why do you think (my interpretation of my understanding of what
you're saying)
that rationality is not just a type of belief ? I see rationality as
belief that what we are experiencing could be understand/known by us,
somehow here and now could be explained in acceptable term.

In any cases, I just see absurdity for what is reality (don't know if
it has
to be rational), but in the "not everything" case, I see it as much
absurd. In the everything case, I'm because I must be by
definition... And
you are too for the same reason. In the other case you just get absurd
justification for absurdity ;D


Yes, rationality is a type of belief, but not all belief falls into the realm of rationality, just as not all real numbers fall into the set of rational numbers. You said that you don't see any rationality in either the "everything" case or the "not everything" case. That is, both require blind faith. This is what I (and I think we) are calling absurd. That's OK. It's part of everyday living. I'm not arguing that belief in the existence of observations is not rational. I'm just arguing that simply bringing in the hypothetical set of all unobservable things doesn't explain rationally in any way (deeper than our
direct experience) the existence of observable things.

Reply via email to