= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MBlume comments on Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (31)
I've often felt the same about C.S. Lewis. It is a peculiarity of the rationalist mode of thought that this is an expression of respect.
Mm. If you say so. I don't view it that way:
(Or to put it another way, I've read a number of his apologetic works, and they didn't hold water to me at all; I was particularly offended by his weak arguments in The Problem of Pain, and by his trilemma. So I don't think he would argue honestly in good faith etc.)
Giving weak arguments does not demonstrate that one is not arguing honestly and in good faith; only that one has cognitive limitations, or blind spots, or something of the sort. Which, alas, we all have here and there, and it's hardly astonishing if a religious person has them in areas closely related to his religion.
(That might, for present purposes, be functionally equivalent to not arguing honestly and in good faith, and I share the suspicion that CSL wouldn't be likely to be deconverted after an hour's discussion. But it's not the same thing, and in particular doesn't have the same implications for the person's character generally.)
Indeed - and by the principle of charity, if we're to bother to discuss his work, we must assume that he's arguing honestly and in good faith with cognitive limitations, rather than the converse.
I also have great respect for C. S. Lewis...but I don't think an hour would be quite sufficient for him :)
Oh, no, not an hour certainly. Meeting daily for an academic quarter seems sufficient in my imagination, but I'm probably just anchoring because I'm used to academic quarters.
Is that peculiar to rationalists? It's not obvious to me.
If you're following the view of debate as competition, as combat, it seems like the equivalent of saying "give me five minutes with that wimp, I'd have him on the ropes"
ETA: I imagine my Christian friends being offended if I stood up and said "I think I could deconvert C.S. Lewis, were he living, and willing to give me some of his time".
ETA2: When what I would mean by the comment would be something along the lines of "from what I've read of his writings I would imagine Lewis arguing with me in good faith, with an open and active mind, and with a primary concern for the truth," some of the highest compliments a(n epistemic) rationalist can pay.