How do you deemotionalize a punch in the face? If you're looking for a *reason* for saying things like "Giving in to strict reason, and trying to be value-neutral, and talk about the greatness of Einstein and Hitler in the same breath -- is a dangerous thing, testifying of a lack of heart.", I don't think there really is a *reason*. I think such a position is another expression of the survival instinct, and it is internalized and instinctualized similar as fearing a rabid dog is. What Einstein's thinking and Hitler's thinking have in common is intensity -- yet one intensitiy is good, beneficient, creative, while the other intensity is bad, destructive. (Or so they are mostly perceived.) Is just so happens to be that humans have a strong tendency to choose what is beneficient for them, hence Albert. Also, in a system with more elements, we tend to make a hierarchy ( antural consequence of being a limited being and having to orientate oneself): whatever happens to be at the extremes will be either pursued as worthy, or rejected as unworthy. This hierarchy is always relative -- it is not an absolute hierarchy. If I compare Hitler and Stalin, I'd say Hitler was worse. If I compare Hitler and Ghengis Khan -- I'd think Ghengis worse. But does this make Hitler a good one then? Not necessarily. I know, you don't hold instinctive "reasoning" in high esteem. However, I firmly believe that there are more ways of processing and explaining information that just reason. Some meanings cannot be conveyed via means of reason -- this is why we do all sorts of other things, like kiss, fight, paint, draw, play music ... The way of reason is the long, tedious way, sure and (seemingly) safe -- and eventually quite boring. Those other ways are, in comparison to the way of reason, like magnificent wormholes. I know, you may say that it is all just a chemical soup -- but we, at least many of us, don't experience ourselves on the level of this chemical soup. We are led to believe, esp. with this "faith in reason" movement, that everything is explicable and understandable by means of reason. I think it is an ascetic madness to hold such a position. Reason, for its proper work, needs the tools of logic and empirical data. The tools of logic are sometimes hard to learn, and empirical data takes a lot of time and effort to gather and analyze. To make a *reasonable* claim, takes a lot of work. It is simply not feasible and not viable to indulge in that reasonable analyzing for long amounts of time and effort -- for we must also live: work, do things, act. -- So we act a lot on intuition, we act on instinct, we bluff all the time -- it is just that some aren't really aware of it. So saying "Giving in to strict reason, and trying to be value-neutral, and talk about the greatness of Einstein and Hitler in the same breath -- is a dangerous thing, testifying of a lack of heart." is something like a synthetic effect of a long line of influences, thought processes, experiences, and I don't think there is much to analyze. *** Once, it was just around 9/11, I was at a linguistics seminar with college students from the former Yugoslaw republics and Albania. Some of those students had their houses burnt down, were deported, some were even in battle. Then 9/11 happened, and one of the seminar topics that was to be about journalism, was abruptly changed and newspapers were brought and 9/11 was to be discussed. Of course, the topic of the Balkan war was inevitable, and some of the students started arguing about it -- like who deserved what. What I found most appalling is that the teacher from Germany thought the war no big deal -- Why couldn't we rationally talk about it? he asked. I could smash his fat face for that. The comforts of capitalism have made people think that everything can be and should be rationally discussed. But once life strikes with its brutest forces, the whole idiocity and unnaturalness of this "faith in reason" can become apparent. We are not just heads, and he is a fool who thinks we are.