Rational is as rational does, and persons transcend rationality.
Meaning just about anything is acceptable for “persons?”
When is this “transcending” of rationality warranted or justified and when is it not?
Are you claiming that as long as it is a “person” who transcends rationality there is no problem with doing so? How would you know it is a “person” doing so and not that this “person” has merely gone off the rails and become dysfunctional? Must be some reasonable way to assess that, no?
The statement just seems an odd one to make. Kind of like saying your own personal rationality trumps the “rationality” of common parlance, therefore you, inocente, are justified in “transcending” the vulgar “rationality” of the masses with your own personal version simply because you have the dignity of being a “person.”
Of course, you would likely admit anyone who happens to agree with you to have a share in that dignity and also transcend the vulgar rationality of the masses, I would think. Meaning, dissenters are merely “rational” while you and your like-minded ilk share a superior and transcendent “knowledge.”
On the improbable possibility that you happen to admit that a “person” who disagrees with you on some points might also “transcend” rationality, the problem (at least for your claim) becomes how to arbitrate between two such “persons” who both transcend “rationality” without recourse to some “rational” means of doing so?
Apparently, merely claiming to transcend “rationality” does not, I suspect, make a point of view invulnerable to critique, as much as you would like it to. It does mean, however, that you would need to construct a non-rational basis for distinguishing between acceptable and not acceptable “personal” views. Assuming, of course, that the inocente view is not the de facto correct one. Just saying.
Otherwise, “persons transcend rationality” is polite code for, "I am right and no matter what reasons you come up with, if you disagree with my “person,” you are wrong.
)
