Could you explain your last paragraph a little more?
Fair enough, could you tell me what exactly it means to be a good rationalist?
Ok, so these skill sets contribute significantly to the productivity and health of a person. Then would you disagree with the following:
The feeling that I am jumping on nebu and the idea that I am advocating a straw vulcan is you using loaded words to make an extreme judement about my meaning and my motives. First of all, I am not trying to say a rational person has to be emotionless. The fact taht Emotions are important, doesn't mean that anyone invoking some emotional response is unconditionally right. Supporting something "not because you agree with it" but because you felt some personal attachment is the most common of pyschological reflexes. I am not telling Nebu that he has to be emotionless, or that rationality segregates itself from emtions, but that the way he is using his emotions here is irrational. If you support something how is it something you do not agree with, and why are you supporting something you do not agree with?
when the sentence would work as well with "thought", is rude as well.
Changing felt for thought is sneaking in connotations
Additionally, saying that the East should look to the West for enlightenment doesn't mean there is no enlightenment to be found in the East. It just says that by far the more important enlightenment is more common in the West than the East.
Actually saying that the East should look to the West for enlightenment says nothing about where enlightenment is more or less common, or anything about a degree of enlightenment. This is the assumption you are bringing to the statement. All this statement implies are there are things that the East could learn from the West, with no implication about how many things there are, or as was pointed out above, how many things there are in the East for the West to learn about.
I voted the comment up, but not because I "agreed" with it[1], nor because I wanted to "shut up hippies", but merely because I found it interesting and felt it earned my endorsement as a comment worth reading.
What the point is of attempting to adhere to or advocate for rationality as a human standard if the axiom of your decision to support something is not that it had any real merit, but that you "felt" it was good?
Ok, then the next question is that would you agree for a human skills related to emotional and social connection maximize the productivity and health of a person?
Isn't saying that Yvain's final statement is
exactly backwards
also failing to make a distinction between a vaguely hostile comment and an extreme claim? To say it is exactly backwards is to imply that there is nothing wrong with steve jobs statement. I agree with you that some of Yvain's fallacies are distorted--most notably the assumption that those who liked the comment were venting out a subconscious lash at "hippies"--but that does not change the fact that Steve job’s statement contains huge logical issues.
First, Yvain is right that it is a fallacy of equivocation.
Second, any statement that attempts to make a generalization about "the East" is a HUGE over-generalization and... (read more)
But I actually can't agree with your argument than "enlightenment" is a fallacy of equivocation. It IS the Enlightenment values of Bacon and Newton that brought us the enlightenment of vaccination and electricity---that's not a coincidence.
I think there is some confusion in Yvain's definition of the third type of enlightenment, and that is why you are missing the point. Yvain describes the third type of enlightenment as
"enlightenment", meaning achieving a state of nirvana free from worldly desire.
It would be better to think about nirvana as an alternative mental state produced through a highly focused and intentional lifestyle. In this sense it is a technique for internal transformation of the individual... (read more)
I understand rationality to be related to a set of cognitive tools rather than a certain personality or genetic type. Like any other tool it can be misused. You can kill a person with a spoon, but that is a misuse of its intended function. You cut a pound of raw meat with a chainsaw, but that is a misuse of its intended function. Tools are designed with both intended purposes and functional limitations. Intended purposes serve to provide the user with an understanding of how to achieve optimal impact. For example, some intended uses of a sword would be killing, disabling, acting, or training (and many more). Tools can be... (read 1056 more words →)
Ok, so then I would say that the soccer player in being empathetic to my objectives would be strengthening his or her emotional/ social capacity, which would benefit his or her health/ productivity, and thus benefit his or her soccer playing.