In any case, if someone uses the modus ponens to demonstrate to me that the modus ponens is an eternal, rational law (classical, to be sensed and accepted), I will consider it rational to call his claim irrational. However, it seems to me reasonable to reason according to the modus ponens in many instances, for example, in playing cards: If I have established that four aces beat four tens, if you then have four aces, I have to admit that you have won. The point is to establish that we can also change the game, by mutual consent.
What I continue to consider irrational is somebody’s insistence that, for instance, Desire always wins out over the modus ponens (which could also be possible); but then to impose on me his own notions of Desire and to confute my confutation, he tries to catch me in contradiction by using the modus ponens. I feel a Desire to bash him one.
I attribute the spread of such irrational behavior to the great number of publications that play with metaphorical irresponsibility on the crises of reason. But let me make it clear that the problem affects us not only at the level of learned debate, but also in daily behavior and political life. And so, a qualified Viva! to the modus ponens.
1980
The end
