Rationalism: a paper tiger?

Hi, Nem.Is there anyone in particular, either on EvC or in real life, who is a Rationalist or a Postmodernist, according to your conception of the terms?If so, who are they, and why do you object to their beliefs?If not, why should we worry about a conception that doesn't exist in reality?Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Well, I don't know whether Postmodernists and Rationalists applaud tolerance -- some might, some might not, but tolerance or intolerance is not something I associate automatically with either postmodernism or with rationalism.But what do you think tolerance is? Tolerance is not the automatic acceptance of each and every view point as equally valid and acceptable.Tolerance is simply the belief that one does not sanction or discriminate against other beliefs simply because they differ from your own or even contradict your own beliefs. Tolerance simply means that one allows people who have beliefs that contradict yours to live in peace. It doesn't mean that you accept their beliefs as equally valid as yours, or that you never argue against their beliefs.Also, tolerance doesn't imply that there is no limit to what one allows in society. Actions that are a public danger, for example, can be sanctioned without charges of hypocrisy, and even beliefs that lead to such actions can be discouraged.I'm not sure what examples you think you see of hypocrisy among those advocating tolerance, but I suspect you don't quite get what tolerance actually means.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Hi, Nem. Huh? Now I am confused. The problem is that whichever decision this particular woman makes, someone somewhere is going to be offended? This is the fault of who? Postmodernists? Rationalists? Prudes? Libertines? Anti-American pro-terrorist liberal socialist pedophile Democrats?Is the only logical, non-hypocritical thing to do is set up a regime like Soviet Russia or the Islamic Republic of Iran where everyone is required to believe the same exact thing?I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Huh. Is that so? You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like no one (including the postmodernists themselves) know what they mean when they use the word "absolute". I've never seen anyone give a precise definition of what an "absolute" is -- and so how could anyone know whether or not there are absolutes? Or whether the statement, "There are no absolutes" is itself an absolute?But I may be wrong -- I know nothing about postmodernism (or modernism, for that matter). Just the impression I get from discussions with anti-postmodernists (remember this used to be Rob's Schtick?).

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Or even Rationalism -- that was mentioned in the OPs as well. But I think most folks here are closer to Empiricism than they are to Rationalism.I tried to get Nem to clarify what he was getting at, but my posts always get ignored!

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

To sort of add to some comments that were made before, it appears that Chesterton was not speaking against Postmodernism, since there was no Postmodernist movement during his lifetime.What he appears to be speaking against, if he is speaking about anything that is labelled with a string containing modern, is, perhaps, Modernism, a movement in the Catholic Church that has almost nothing to do with the school of philosophy called Postmodernism.I think that this is a possibility since Nem brings up Rationalism; Rationalism is a part of this Catholic Modernist movement which is not quite the same, it appears, as Rationalism in Philosophy. If so, then, since a heck of a lot of us are atheists or agnostics, Chesterton's arguments don't seem to have a lot to relevance to us.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Hi, Nem.Okay, sorry, but I am becoming more confused as to your point. I don't know about wrong, but it is ridiculous. But I don't do that (at least not that I've noticed), I haven't noticed anyone here who does that (if there are, examples would be helpful), and I don't think any of the movements for which I have sympathy are this schizophrenic.Perhaps the problem is that I have wandered into a conversation that doesn't really concern me?Edited by Chiroptera, : forgot to spell check

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Well, I have noticed that conservative evangelical Christians have a tendency to lump different groups of people together simply on the basis of they're not being conservative evangelical Christians, so it's not always easy to tell whether I'm being included in any given description.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Me? Condemn lumping? I love lumping!- I hate being ignored. Can't win for losing, eh?- We all wear different hats at times. Sometimes someone is going to talk about one of your hats even while you're wearing a different one.-No worries, mate.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein