tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post5463582634521272409..comments2023-06-14T10:33:15.008-04:00Comments on Shilton HaSechel שלטון השכל: Back to Russel and "The Emotions of the Heart"Shilton HaSechelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-29023011007649594032012-04-29T02:52:13.353-04:002012-04-29T02:52:13.353-04:00> The dictates of the heart, on the other hand,...> The dictates of the heart, on the other hand, have never been used to manipulate reality effectively<br /><br />I don't think that's true. The dictates of the hearts have created wars, inspired architecture and poetry and changed the course of history innumerable times. <br /><br />In addition, your Jew vs Chrisian comment is also incomplete. A Chrisian may have an emotional tie to religion but when presented with the Jewish challenge to his basic beliefs he will have to respond with some kind of logic. Maybe nothing based in science but logic based in philosophy. Religion is far more complex than just something based in "the heart."GarnelIronheart1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-73469495743704868432012-04-27T11:08:00.805-04:002012-04-27T11:08:00.805-04:00You compare math and logic on the one hand to emot...You compare math and logic on the one hand to emotions of the heart on the other. So anything that isn't logic is emotions of the heart and you believe that we have no reason to trust anything but math and logic.<br />In that case, most things we do are based on the heart and we have every reason to trust our hearts, even if sometimes our hearts are wrong.<br /><br />Judges, writers, artists, sportsmen, doctors, cooks, etc. all use emotions of the heart.<br />When you interpret a verse in the Bible to mean X, you're using your heart.<br />When you believe the Documentary Hypothesis you are using your heart.<br /><br />The fact that two people's hearts tell them different things does not mean the "heart" cannot be trusted. Two judges might come to a different conclusion on a judgement. Two commentators may explain a verse differently. This does not mean that the judges or commentators are using the wrong faculty of their brains to reach their conclusions.Meiravrahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-47138232933081123442012-04-16T16:36:59.116-04:002012-04-16T16:36:59.116-04:00I think one could argue that
there is a somewhat u...I think one could argue that<br />there is a somewhat universal intuition that the world has/should have a<br />meaning or purpose which is obviously disconnected from any particular<br />religion. This intuition is something that<br />should be taken seriously be it only for its ubiquity. You interpret Russell as appealing<br />to pragmatics in his happiness with taking maths and logic as universal and<br />important intuitions. Russell however<br />thought maths and logic were more deeply ground than that; they are built into<br />the nature of reality, just take a look at his logical atomism. Also, pragmatism can get quite slippery and<br />can potentially lead to relavism—I am not saying it is thus false—just that it<br />is certainly not what Russell and other such die-hard fans logic and<br />rationality would be happy with. You<br />would end up having to say that if religion did ‘work’ and produce<br />superior society then it should be accepted as true (take murder as a classic<br />pragmatist example). I, for one, don’t<br />think that pragmatism is the right answer here; we should take this intuition of<br />meaning seriously regardless. So, Russell is right that you<br />shouldn’t base things upon emotions of the heart; you should check your<br />intuitions versus the rest of mankind. <br />In the case of religion, this does not get you very far. In the case of the intuition I mentioned at<br />the beginning, I think there is something to be said. Mikeynoreply@blogger.com