by Sanford Aranoff

Created on: July 25, 2009

Obama stated the preference for a nominee who demonstrates "empathy" for ordinary people and relies on more than "abstract legal theory" in making decisions. We need to discuss this important point. Since the discussion concerns abstract theory, the discussion below may be somewhat lengthy. It concerns rational thinking.

The essential difference between people and animals is the human ability to analyze complex issues based upon fundamental principles verified by historical, observational and experimental evidence. Animals, on the other hand, act pragmatically, acting to meet immediate objectives, and acting towards kin and others familiar to meet their immediate compassionate needs. The human ability for abstract thinking does not begin until late adolescence, with many uneducated people never capable of reaching Piaget abstract thinking. In addition, animals tend to act in herds, whereas people are capable of rational thought to come to conclusions contrary to the widely accepted ideas.

We have reached our current level of human abstract thinking and analysis only after serious struggles. During the Middle Ages, people accepted truth as that which the Church decrees. If a scientist takes a telescope making observations contrary to Church teachings, they force him to recant. Many people accept Sharia law as absolute and unchanging, and are active in killing and dying for this goal. Rational analytic thinking, based upon Gdel type mathematical analysis, leads to the conclusion that no statement can be absolute and unchanging, with the result of the current conflict between adherents of Sharia law and Western rationality.

The only way mankind can survive is by using rational thinking to deal with the problems we are faced with. If we insist like acting as animals, focused only the immediate, and ignoring historical evidence, we are doomed. If we insist on following certain principles that we declare are true, without analyzing these principles, we are doomed. We cannot continue to develop science and medicine to deal with diseases if we insist on truth as defined by the Church in the Middle Ages. We cannot rationally define an economy that will keep us prosperous if we insist on following Islamic principles without criticism. Indeed, many of us are very reluctant to criticize our government leaders. It is not logically possible for any leader never to err justifying criticism, and so the widespread reluctance to criticize our leaders is a serious sign of irrational

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>