[Subfallen]

carlo -

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know if concepts like prudence, justice, envy, sloth,hatred,irony and love are observable realities and included in NATURE. Do they fit into the catagories of rational or irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how one attempts to define these concepts. As descriptions of neuropsychical states, clearly they are naturalistic concepts. (And thus actually meaningful.)

[ QUOTE ]
If one states that one must be able to weigh and measure an entity to be scientific it is putting the methodology which is scientific into the trash can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well surely phenomenology is a different sort of "weighing" and "measuring." But still the phenoms under discussions at least provisionally appear to have a solely naturalistic explanation: consciousness in the human brain.

In any case, I have great reverence for true spirituality (which is nonrational.) What I object to is the false intellectualization of religious claims. BTIrish's claim that it is actually meaningful to call men sinners in a metaphysical context is such a claim.

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of saying this is that NATURE is not only External but Internal to Man and it stands within the realm of rationality and logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this I agree with entirely.