untitled
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:55:12 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: Re: Flatland
To: [Family member B]
As I've mentioned before I rate this as my all-time favourite
book. I'm very happy that you also enjoyed it.
I wonder why you think it would not appeal to me?
I go back to your email where you stated
"The trouble with the rationalist argument is that they have no
understanding whatsoever of the spiritual dimension, and to make it
worse they deliberately close their eyes to that which is obvious and
their hearts to the voice of conscience, so as to be without excuse."
I wonder whether you peg me as a rationalist, and therefore without
understanding of anything that is not 'real' in a naturalistic
sense? I think your statement (and perhaps your understanding)
confuses the limitations of the rationalist argument with the
limitation of the rationalist's personal mental capabilities. The
argument (philosophy) deliberately discounts irrational (ie
non-rational) explanations for observed phenomena. A
rationalist's personal mental capabilities are not so constrained.
bravenet.com