= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on [Link] The perils of “reason” - 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 (9)
So you're asserting that there are two kinds of people, those that call reason "reason", and those that mistakenly call something else "reason". Keep in mind that people in the second category believe that they belong to the first. So how do you know you don't belong to the second category?
I am asserting that different people attach the label "reason" to different concepts, nothing else. I certainly don't assert existence of two categories; if you push me hard to categorise, I would rather admit 6 billion categories as no two people would probably completely agree on definition of "reason". I have said nothing about myself being right in the use of "reason" and others being "mistaken".
And implicitly sorting those concepts into two categories, those that are suspect and those that aren't.
Is there a way how to formulate the idea that different people may use "reason" differently which would not appear to you as implicit sorting of those interpretations into two categories, suspect and non-suspect? Note that although I have used the word "suspect", it was in a paraphrase of Khan's position, not referring to the interpretations of "reason".
Only if you're willing to deny the existence of an objective reality.