On Nov 19, 5:19 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I don't regard those things you mentioned as irrational. > Seeking out out things that make us feel good is very rational. >
Many artists claim that making their works of art can, at times, be an agonizing experience. Sometimes people will experience joy from these same art works. Other works of art give most people disturbing feelings. People are attracted to them, nevertheless. Love can be and usually is both joyful and painful, since we must often give up plans and goals to make a relationship work. Some people claim that religious activities make them feel good. In some cases I suspect that the religion in general makes them feel bad, but certain activities within it remedy the problem making them feel good. In other cases, I suspect that the religion as a whole makes them feel safer, more whole or something like that without making them feel bad first. None of these activities are rational in themselves. In my opinion it is more desirable to try and discern the effects on individuals, their families friends and so forth of such activities. While I am not for banning any activities, I would be for removing the tax-exempt status of any religious and not for profits if they can be shown to be dabbling in politics. That is already the law and it is not pursued vigorously enough. Though I suspect that irrationality can not be keep entirely out of our government, we should at least try to limit it. On Nov 19, 5:19 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<I would say that apropriate rationalism is sartionalism that seems > to serve a useful function, such as play, humor, art, love and much > much more. >> > > I suppose you meant "irrationalism" rather than "rationalism", and I > don't know what "sartionalism" means. > > Anyway, I don't regard those things you mentioned as irrational. > Seeking out out things that make us feel good is very rational. > > On Nov 19, 5:16 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 19, 4:09 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<How do I tell the difference between inappropriate irrationalism and > > > appropriate irrationalism?>> > > > > Easy. That would be irrationalism that lsparklaria agrees with. :-) > > > I like your definition. Now if only I could everyone else to buy it as > > being the objective standard on everything. Wait a minute, that might > > make for a boring world. > > > On a more serious note, I would say that apropriate rationalism is > > sartionalism that seems to serve a useful function, such as play, > > humor, art, love and much much more. > > > On Nov 19, 4:09 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<How do I tell the difference between inappropriate irrationalism and > > > appropriate irrationalism?>> > > > > Easy. That would be irrationalism that lsparklaria agrees with. :-)- > > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
