the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posted 11 Dec 2006, 20:12 by Will, Peralogue

I'm always a bit leery of defining something which actually exists as being "illogical" and especially of saying that it "shouldn't" exist. Should is a bit of a silly word for conversation of the level you seem to want to have. What do you mean by "should"? Are you religious, in which case your "should" might be translated to be "Divinely commanded"? Are you an atheist (humans are lightning in meat) in which your "should" comes out as something like "I prefer that". You state that : "their (their refers to nations) existence is irrational and hence that they should not exist. " You base the irrationality of nations upon the foundation that you have not been able to rationalize their existence. I imagine that you are also (offhand) unable to explain the full workings of your computer, or your local hospital. Clearly its irrational and shouldn't exist. The idea that your idea of rationality is the litmus test that all human institutions must pass in order to be justified (with the almighty should!) in their existence is hilarious, but oddly attractive. Accepting then, as read, the idea that nations are not inherently logical by virtue of having come into existence and endured thousands of years of stress testing we come to the conclusion that further proof is necessary. I propose that you accept nations as rational based upon their utility. I think if you examine the actions of nations you will have some difficulty in determing another group which could and would take on those actions if nations were to be dissolved. view post

  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.