A dilemma from Commensurability 2.0

Note that neither convergence nor appreciability are strictly rational criteria. Just because everybody else thinks a certain way, does not make that way rational in and of itself. For example, the commonsense intuition that a second is a second anywhere in the world has been thoroughly refuted by relativity theory. Appreciability is not a rational attribute either, because appreciability can be applied to views that are not strictly rational, even if they are human. A person can quite appreciably believe something that seems false but that obviously comforts her.

This puts me in a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, I want to be faithful to the process of philosophical discourse as it actually happens, not just the way a bunch of philosophers think it ought to happen. On the other hand, I was taught that you needed reason to be non-coercive. Yet clearly, the upper and lower levels of what I call 'commensurability' cannot be strictly considered rational. Therefore, if I still want to be faithful to my scale of degrees of 'conduciveness to a non-coercive convergence of opinion', something's gotta give.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Philosophy of Al Qaeda

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Commensurability 5.0