I am suggesting that we move too quickly to the view that rationalism is always an assault on the romantic soul, that it is a symptom of anxiety about our own madly passionate natures, or that it is a flight from love. Instead, rationalism may have its adaptive side, one that seeks to reinforce the ego structures needed to experience the passionate intensity of human emotions. It is possible to see rationalism not as an escape from romanticism, not as a defensive maneuver to protect the self from the excesses of desire, but instead as an effort to master, to fully experience, our passionate natures.
At least it’s working against the Straw Vulcan image.
And if by ‘our passionate natures’ one means ‘fulfilling the values one would wish to have if one thought clearer, etc.’ then it seems rather closely aligned. Of course, it doesn’t—but it’s not so far off.
-- Anne C. Dailey, in her paper Liberalism’s Ambivalence.
This appears to me to be using “rationalism” to denote something much “weaker” than, e.g., LW-style rationalism.
(Where by “weaker” I mean not “worse” but “having fewer claims and commitments”.)
At least it’s working against the Straw Vulcan image.
And if by ‘our passionate natures’ one means ‘fulfilling the values one would wish to have if one thought clearer, etc.’ then it seems rather closely aligned. Of course, it doesn’t—but it’s not so far off.