> The Age of Enlightenment has brought to ridiculous heights, the power of
the
> intellect while reducing the power of character which often arises out of
> feelings, honour, respect and overall character. The book Brad
recommended
> several months ago, Cosmology identified the change from a society that
> allowed the differences of individuals to flourish, to one in which
> rationality decreed there is a right and wrong way. We moved in my
opinion
> from an analog society to a digital society, but natures way, the animals
> way is analog, it is only man who sees right and wrong - the digital
> decision. Our current mess is the result of a million - million right
> decisions. Perhaps a few more decisions that could not be justified by
> rationality and were made from character might have given us a much
> different world.
>
ramble... strawmen stuff. Just because we strive for rational
decision making, that doesn't mean that individuality should somehow
suffer; and decisions do not have to be "digital" always.
Eva
Dear Eva:
Reading the morning paper, I read a book review of "Letters to Kennedy by
John Kenneth Galbraith. To bolster my argument that character often will
produce better decisions than rationality, I will quote a quote.
Quote: There's also a discussion on whether what is now known as "the
Kennnedy tax cut," a highly successful economic stimulus, was needed.
Galbraith thought not: "Too much about the tax cut has to be explained. The
unemployed man has to be told that we cannot much increase his benefits but
we can reduce the taxes on the stiff who has a job. We will have to
explain - indeed I will have to explain - to the underdeveloped lands why we
can afford only fairly modest aid programs at a time when we are cutting
taxes at home."
To me these are comments of character intelligence rather than rationality.
Obviously, Kennedy's advisors had come up with the idea that reducing taxes
would put more money in the hands of the consumer - a rational and logical
thought - which would increase the demands for goods and services - which
would improve economic activity - and because the working guy could buy more
he would feel beholden to the Democrats and be more inclined to vote for
Kennedy in the next election. This is all logical and rational thinking.
However, Galbraith brings to the fore the unexplored consequences for which
Kennedy is also responsible - the plight of the poor and unemployed American
and the commitments and promises made to other countries in terms of foreign
aid. Neither of which is rational but matters of honour and responsibility.
Given that a leader who makes decisions based on morality rather than
rational self interest, the possibility exists that more respect, honour,
and trust will be generated which will increase the relationship between
those governing and those governed.
In my sense of our current historical position, the rational argument has
become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which serves the
goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be morally right
and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the dominant
paradigm.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
