"Solipsism of the present moment" is perfectly rational. In fact, it is the simplest possible metaphysical model. Try arguing against it.
Belief in witches, ghosts, ancestor spririts, anal-probing aliens, paranoid delusions are all completely rational beliefs within the belief system of the believer (or can be, if they are reasoned and make sense). We do not know that AIDS is caused (probably) by HIV because that hypothesis is more internally coherent and rational, but because we investigated the disease and corroborated the theory within our conceptual paradigm.
I think you have things backasswards, assuming that we actually have "rational" (that is, definitely coinciding with the state of affairs) knowledge, and then assuming that the universe must be such as to allow such knowledge to be. Well, we don't. Deal with it. :)
(I think it's funny that Aristotle is being dragged in here, since he held lots of beliefs that would be considered completely "irrational" by most people here, like belief in the veracity of the Oracle of Delphi, natural slavery, and possibly an afterlife.)
--- Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> > "Rational" does not mean "right," but "reasoned
> and
> > logically consistent." (You certainly aren't going
> to
> > find a solution to the virus-witch problem through
> > phenomenology, given that it is a highly
> sophisticated
> > form of introspection for which the existence of
> an
> > objective reality is meaningless in both Husserl's
> and
> > Heidegger's formulations.) Actually given the
> > assumptions of people who do believe in witches,
> the
> > witch theory is perfectly rational. They are
> almost
> > certainly wrong, but that is not the point.
>
> This misses the point which was that the claim that
> there are no
> rational foundations for belief implies that it's
> not possible to find
> rational foundations for believing that HIV/AIDS is
> not caused by
> witchcraft and, therefore, can't be prevented by
> murdering "witches,"
> i.e. it implies that there are no rational
> foundations on which to
> base the conclusion that the belief that it is and
> can be is mistaken.
>
> There are also no rational foundations on which to
> base the conclusion
> that it's irrational which, as you say, is different
> from the
> conclusion that it's mistaken.
>
> In fact, on this assumption no "knowledge" in the
> sense of rationally
> grounded belief is possible. So claims to "know,"
> in this sense, that
> other people exist and believe in witchcraft
> contradict the assumption.
>
> It's not true, however, that consistency with
> assumptions makes a
> conclusion "rational." "Solipsism of the present
> moment" isn't a
> "rational" conclusion.
>
> Husserl's phenomenology isn't a "form of
> introspection for which the
> existence of an objective reality is meaningless."
> This misinterprets
> and misrepresents the idea of "bracketing."
>
> "Bracketing" is putting in question all interpretive
> frameworks, This
> includes the interpretive framework that makes
> "intelligible" the
> conclusion that experience is so constituted that
> "bracketing" in this
> sense is impossible. Leaving this interpretive
> framework unquestioned
> is failing to "bracket" it and so isn't
> "phenomenology" in the sense
> of Husserl.
>
> Putting it in question, "contesting" it, is very
> difficult, however,
> It's very difficult to "resist its charms."
>
> This difficulty is linked to the misidentification
> of "rationality"
> with "remorseless logic"
>
> It's also linked to the difficulty of putting in
> question the belief
> that "all" “forms of scientific consciousness" are
> “aspects of the
> will to knowledge,” of a “rancourous”, “malicious”,
> “murderous”
> “instinct for knowledge.”
>
> It's also linked to absurd belief in the "inner
> truth and greatness"
> of National Socialism.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Mataiotes mataioteton, eipen ho Ekklasiastes, mataiotes mataioteton, ta panta mataiotes.