Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Luckily I still have some criticism though:
Randi didn't seem to get the question about love and romance, or the irrationality around it.
By changing to the rational aspects of marriage (the contract) and children this merely deflects the topic. Marriage never needed the current concept of love and romance for many ages, it's a recent development of last centuries and has become way bigger as mass phenomenon in the last century, just like big entertainment and multimedia.
Since this issue is quite important when we want to understand the core problem with the popularity of the supernatural claims and the hostility against scientific thought, I wonder if Randi was not let too easily of the hook. It seems a bit too much like a sacrifice to keep a sense of agreement in place perhaps, or just simplifying the conversation?
Another criticism would be how the topic of certainty was handled. Agreeing on the fact that absolute truths are definitional by its very nature leaves a lot of wiggle room. The law of identity or non-contradiction are not only valid because we define them into existence, like 1+1. Something like 1+1, or 4+4 is a contextual truth (4 golf balls arranged carefully together with 4 planets constitutes 8 spherical items). A sum like 4+4 is only short-hand for the reality it has to reflect, with all of its choices and parameters. An absolute or universal truth is still different from this because it's not short-hand for some application or limited generalization; it goes under all possible circumstances, past and future ones included.
I do understand however that the show is not meant as vehicle to get out Solway's philosophy but I notice a change from earlier shows where the viewpoints of the hosts themselves were often way more clearly profiled and debated. Is this intentional?
understand where QSR is coming from in regard to relationships, but his take on marriage seemed reasonable.Marriage may start out all romantic but 'romance' is a natural phenomina to extend the species even though emotionally driven. Over the long term marriage amounts to a mutually beneficial(hopefully) 'contract' once the 7 year itch kicks in(or what ever one wants to call it).If one recognises 'romance' for what it is -a burst of emotions(temporary false thoughts if you like) and sees marriage as a contract, can it not be rational?
Ataraxia wrote:...'romance' is a natural phenomina to extend the species even though emotionally driven.
Dan Rowden wrote:I was quite impressed with Randi's statements about science in the early stages of the show. That expressed a degree of cognizance and courage for me.
David Quinn wrote:One thing that puzzled me was his idea that he liked to think about 4+4 instead of 1+1. He implied that it was somehow a superior or more challenging thing to think about, for reasons that escape me.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not sure how 'natural' it is since it only showed up somewhere during the Middle Ages in our cultures (Tristan and Isolde), slowly getting more 'mainstream' throughout the last ages. The really ancient 'love' stories mostly revolve around conquest, status and beauty ('perceived value').
Nick Treklis wrote:I thought the most ridiculous thing he said was claiming that he was getting closer to the Truth, even though he admitted he doesn't know what the Truth is. It's impossible to tell if your getting closer to something if you don't know what that something is. It's more or less an accident when one comes face to face with the Truth, kind of like walking around in the dark and suddenly running into a brick wall. If anything he had better hope he's getting closer to the Truth at his age.
Ataraxia wrote:I take your point,but men and women have fallen in love for millenia.Just because Mills and Boon weren't writing about it didn't mean it didn't occur.
Oedepus unwittingly falls in love with his mother as an example.
The philosopher can deny the pull of hormones and pheremones all they like, but they have ever been thus.
Do you mean examples in pre-middle ages literature?If so, in greek mythology there is Eros -the god of love,would be one that quickly comes to mind.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Ataraxia wrote:I take your point,but men and women have fallen in love for millenia.Just because Mills and Boon weren't writing about it didn't mean it didn't occur.
Hmm, I'd love to hear some good examples.
Not really sure what your saying.Can you elaborate?ataraxia:The philosopher can deny the pull of hormones and pheremones all they like, but they have ever been thus.
Deibert:On the contrary, the philosopher knows them inside out. This sets him apart from the people who only dabble with the tip of that iceberg thinking all the while they have lived and loved in any significant way.
Ataraxia wrote:in greek mythology there is Eros -the god of love,would be one that quickly comes to mind.
Dan Rowden wrote:In this edition of the Reasoning Show we explore the nature of the skeptical mind, walk the high wire of doubt and examine the difference between illusion and delusion. In his own inimitable style, Randi discusses self-delusion, credulity, the nature of science, the importance of doubt and evidence and more! Arch nemesis to the self-styled psychic guru, Uri Geller, Randi is as sharp of mind and pointed in his criticism as ever. Get your copy of this show now, before it disappears!
The Skeptical Mind
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest