24 definitions by Tex in Tex
The word 'liberal' is derived from the Latin word 'libertas,' meaning 'liberty.' Liberalism started in 17th Century Europe as a logical and historical development from Protestantism with its focus on an individual having a direct personal relationship with God. Liberalism is also rooted in the English tradition of individual rights and privileges. John Locke's *Second Treatise on Civil Government* articulated the basic principles of liberalism--limited government, private property, equality before the law, the rule of law (meaning an impartial application and enforcement of the broad-based laws that allow for a wide scope of private discretion), and some democratic influence to restrict those in power. Locke, himself a Protestant Christian, believed people to be naturally sinful and selfish, but rational and social enough so that they could peacefully interact with one another. Laws are needed to maintain order, but largely the State should be restricted only to protecting private property (broadly defined as a person's private sphere), and to enforce contracts. The Founders of the United States were all followers of Locke. Jefferson's *Declaration of Independence* is an American adaptation of Locke's basic political philosophy. Puritan John Milton's defense of free speech in his *Areopagitica* provided the intellectual justification of the First Amendment from a Christian metaphysic.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
"I am a liberal, they are socialists." Milton Friedman distinguishing himself from leftist liberals.
by Tex in Tex January 17, 2008
According to the dictionary, one set of definitions of 'license' is
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
Modal libertarian: I love to exercise my liberty by watching some porn while I smoke pot.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
by Tex in Tex July 11, 2008
In purely logical terms, this phrase is irrational since it is redundant. I am assuming that 'liberal' in this context means social democrat or socialist, not classical liberal.
"Those liberal scum are at it again trying to force us to live in the patterns they prefer--equality with everyone except the liberals who lord it over us all."
by Tex in Tex February 5, 2008
People who feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Plural of those who subscribe to a humanitarian philosophy. Humanitarians feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex June 20, 2008
Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Cognitive rationality is matching one's beliefs with reality. Instrumental rationality is choosing effective means to achieve one's goals. Achieving one's goals in the real world necessarily demands that one's beliefs be consistent with the independent reality that stands over against us. Teleological rationality is choosing the right goals as established by the objective moral order ordained by God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Listen to the voice of reason...it might be calling to you where you least expect it...Rationality is simply listening to reality.
by Tex in Tex February 6, 2008