: : : Qx: Ah sophistry!!! Is what the old man said. With Reason on such a high pedestal even John Ralston Saul had to wonder why. If Reason could jump to conclusions it would only have to skip.
: g: Have you read this book? (I havent). Could you summarise his criticism of reason/rationalism.
: Qx: It's best to go to the original source and read it for yourself. There's nothing like using one's eye and mind. That way you can summarizeoit for yourself.
: g: From the perspective of the words meanings being rational is saying "2+2=4" which is factually and observably the case - so is this book a childs' rebellion against reality or is it a more subtle criticism of what infact is irrationality and unreason?
Don: Based upon the reviews, it seems to list cases in which "reason" has failed historicaly, one example being the way the "wiz kids" ran the Vietnam war. This is a dubious example: McNamera failed because his reason was flawed, not because reason is at nature flawed. McNamera did not take into account the fact that the knowledge he had was limited.
Don: This type of problem with "reason" (i.e. limited knowledge) is typical of Marxism, so it is ironic that a supporter of Marx would like the book.