I think there are some useful distinctions one could draw here. Say:
Rationalism is the behavior; rationality is the effect.
Rationalism is the means; rationality is the end.
Rationalism is the community, the movement, the project; rationality is its object.
Rationalism is the body of teachings; rationality is the art it teaches.
I don’t think there’s a significant risk that historical rationalism (which isn’t a particularly contentful doctrine in the first place) will get confused with what we’re talking about. Maybe the -ism is harmful. Though there are innumerable cases where the utility of an -ism outweighs the cost. This might be a good place to fight the connotation.
I think there are some useful distinctions one could draw here. Say:
Rationalism is the behavior; rationality is the effect.
Rationalism is the means; rationality is the end.
Rationalism is the community, the movement, the project; rationality is its object.
Rationalism is the body of teachings; rationality is the art it teaches.
I don’t think there’s a significant risk that historical rationalism (which isn’t a particularly contentful doctrine in the first place) will get confused with what we’re talking about. Maybe the -ism is harmful. Though there are innumerable cases where the utility of an -ism outweighs the cost. This might be a good place to fight the connotation.