Hmm. If they had to choose, the Nàłó would be relativists. But they're not saying "Anything you believe is fine." They think rationalist systems are in error.rotting ham wrote:Do the mistresses have any notion of absolutism vs. relativism?
But that's not a claim about the spirit world or enlightenment.Like you said, "they had no objection to reason as a guide in some domains such as mathematics". So if a mistress claims 2+2=5, then she's demonstrably wrong.zompist wrote:What's a demonstrably false claim about the spirit world, or enlightenment?
That would be one type of error (rationalization); Nàłó would happily point out many more, from errors in logic to badly supported claims. (To put it another way, they enjoy using rationalist tools against rationalists. It's good sport, but doesn't mean that they are devoted to those tools themselves.)zompist wrote:Of course this argument doesn't justify Nàló disciples converting to Haeló, but shouldn't it justify women adopting a rationalist stance as long as her feelings guide her in that direction? I mean, if people don't act "rationally" anyway, then isn't the folly of rationalists shortsightedness as to the nature and ultimate source of human motives rather than their pretense of rationality? That is, they see the tree of motivation as:
rationality -> actions
whereas in reality, Haeló disciples behave according to the paradigm:
feelings -> body of rational thought X -> actions
As I said, reason is allowed in basic mathematics; what Nàłó doubts is the applicability to other domains. (They'd be sympathetic to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's views on the "ludic fallacy"— the mistaking of toy domains for reality.)If Nàló is a school of philosophy, but not a body of thought, then doesn't this suffice as an apology for, and promote skeptical toleration towards, women who have already joined Haeló schools as long as their convictions keep supporting those specific rationalist traditions? If illogic (2+2=5) is tolerated in each other, then I can't see how a systematic criticism of other schools is justified.
Again, Nàłó thinks that Hâełó is pedantic, hypocritical, legalistic, and riddled with errors. These problems don't go away even if we allow that the Hâełó thinker is motivated by nice feelings. Nàłó isn't a '60s guru intoning "Whatever make you happy, baby."
Remember, the very basic opposition here is whether nà or hâe, heart or mind, has priority. It seems like you're trying to envision an invidual who somehow prioritizes both. But you really can't say "I believe heart takes first place over mind, and also mind takes first place over heart."