Welcome back Peter, nice to see you writing here again

But, I agree with many of the posters here, a fictional character is not a good basis to demonstrate the shortcomings of a particular worldview.

And just occasionally, a well-meaning and committed individual does change the world for the better. Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Ghandi ...

By all means let’s have a realistic anthropology, but humanity is capable of great good as well as great evil. An overly pessimistic anthropology can lead to quietism and despair in the face of evil

All good points, Saltpetre.

>>...its being drawn from a work of fiction should not dissuade serious attention - after all, part of the purpose of better fiction and drama is to provoke review and introspection, an evaluation of possibilities. Rejection on the basis of a perceived 'religious' interest is also a convenient cop-out, an avoidance of reasoned evaluation.<<

Although, I'm not sure that anyone here has "rejected" the text, have they?

>>Although the author finds fault with rationalism as a means for attaining perfection in humanity...<<

"The author finds fault"? Does he?

What we have is Mr Selleck's opinion that the book is illustrative of the pitfalls and weaknesses of rationalism. Mr Moorehouse's view may be entirely different. In fact, it is difficult to discern any of his views on rationalism from the various interviews with him on the topic of Edith.

http://blog.booktopia.com.au/2011/10/05/

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/interview-frank-moorhouse-20111110-1n7w4.html

The author has written about a rationalist character. Readers are then free to apply their own judgement on the description of that rationalism. Big difference.

"[Interviewer]. What do you hope people take away with them after reading your work?

[Moorehouse] I like to think that my books entertain the reader by working with the world of ideas and at the same time give all the aesthetic pleasures of good story telling."

Yabby – you attribute your empathetic character to your “genetic makeup.” In a materialistic universe isn’t everything we do and think a consequence of our genetic make-up? Other people may influence us but they in turn are simply acting out of their genetic make-up. And “genetic make-up” is just another way of saying that we are the product of molecules interacting according to the laws of physics.

So I take it you are determinist, and if you are right and determinism is true, then all discussion is pointless. (Not that we could stop ourselves doing so though, if that is how the molecules of the universe happen to be arranged at this point.)

JP, I think that genes are all about our potential, they then
interact with our environment, to make us whom we are.

JP might have it in his genetic potential to be a great brain
surgeon, or maybe not. Without him doing the course, we'll never
know. Perhaps JP simply hasn't got the hand-eye coordination skills
required, to ever be so.

As to empathy, we can show that it exists in various primates, for
its evolution makes perfect sense in social species. It assists
the species as a whole to survive. So I think its quite reasonable
to assume that its a genetic characteristic, with some variation
within the population in terms of its expression.

Rhian,
I agree with most of your comment and also with another that says the my article raises more questions than answers. In under a thousand words I just wanted to point out an aspect of rationalism that is hopelessly pollyannaish. I do not think that we should lapse into quietism but we should, if we want to do good things, have an understanding of what we are up against.
Peter

JP, more and more curious.

Whether it be nobler in the mind to address the question and appear informed, or to ignore the question and be confirmed as a dipstick?

So, as you say, “of course people have made up plenty of rules”, which was in response to ““ultimately there really are no rules”. The contradiction is of course, still in the box?

It is difficult to avoid the Gillard Defense of “alas you dysfunctional cretins have misunderstood the meaning of what I actually said or have utterly failed to use your intellect to accurately interpret the “meaning” of what was said”

We on OLO can be eternally grateful for the wisdom that directs us to a new understanding of pseudo-truth. Without your direction we would be eternally consigned to a world of reality. A future laced with sixth form, student debate level, and inconsequential drivel.

Thank you so much for your analysis, I’ve waited some 66 years for someone, anyone, who can offer an explanation of the universe. Well done JP.