> Psychoanalysis provides an explanation of the aggressive hostility
> characteristic of those who misidentify "reason" with axiomatic
> deductive reasoning. The misidentification is an obsessional symptom,
> i.e. it is a sign of unmastered instinctive sadism. This also
> explains the inability of "remorseless" logicians to understand the
> points I've just made, including the point about internal relations
> limiting the applicability of axiomatic deductive reasoning.
>
> Ted
============
Funny how one party sees substantive intractable disagreement with respect to rationality and someone else claims the other merely misunderstands and then ascribes to them aggressive hostility and unmastered instinctive sadism...an appeal to ad hominem and thus irrational.
So do all or only some practitioners of psychoanalysis privilege the uses of arationality to dissemble with those who use logic to demonstrate the implausibility of it's [psychoanalysis'] axioms and hypotheses? I'm thinking here of Adolf Grunbaum.
Not all disagreement, especially with respect to theories, is reducible to an inability to understand someone and/or something.
Please name some people who "misidentify" reason with axiomatic deductive reasoning. Did Kant? Melabranche? Montaigne? Hypatia? Susan Haack? Leibniz? Godel? Who?
Ian
"Reason demands belief in infinitely many contradictions" [Roy Sorenson]