Ok. You are sounding weaker and weaker with every post - on the verge of nonsense. I'm going to move on to other things.
Two comments though:
Quote:
|
Innate desires differ because of genetical variance.
|
If this were true, you would find inheritance patterns in families. Now, does this make any sense whatsoever in the context of the nun who does not desire to look cool??? Or the child of an irresponsible alcoholic father, who takes on a fatherlike role in the household, and becomes 'good person' whose desires are not the same as the fathers? Or a firstborn son who desires to be a president, and a 2nd son who would rather rebel?? Your idea of genetic determinism is hopelessly out of date.
Quote:
|
I can logically determine that if I don't want a book to wet in the rain, I put it in my backpack without having to talk to myself.
|
A bird gets out of the way of torrential rain, too. Just as a bird isn't 'logically determining' anything, you too are 'logically determining' nothing. Learned experience, habit, desire, instinct etc. do not equal reason. That you put your book in your backpack is an arational action, almost a reflex like scratching an itch or biting ones' nails when nervous. Sure you can 'rationalize' these too but only by thinking about it, using language to understand why. Unless again, you want to subsume all of this into reason - but then it becomes a semantic issue and the word 'reason' has many relevant meanings that would be rendered diluted by this act.