For starters, basically anyone cooking from a socialist cookbook. Oakeshott was the Professor of Political Science at the LSE and made friends with Hayek, they were trying to argue with the leftward shift they saw all around them including on the LSE, and the important aspect is here that the kind of socialism they argued with was not based on a practical organic tradition but on overly-theoretical “cookbooks”. Presumably, Oakeshott would not have resisted on these principles a leftward, or egalitarian shift that is based on organic elements that are tried in practice. But most socialism practiced in the era was of the kind that Nassim Taleb calls “ornithologists teaching birds to fly”.
Don’t be too attached to the word “Rationalism”, because it meant very different things in different times and different people. I think Eliezer took the term from mathemathical economics, but overally in philosophy LW-Rationalism used to be called Pragmatism, see Charles Sanders Peirce. And in philosophy or politics rationalism used to mean the same thing as “being logical” or “being theoretical” instead of being pragmatic or empirical. For example Descartes is associated with inventing rationalism-in-the-old-sense, but his main opponent Vico is closer to LW-Rationalism because Descartes was looking for sure, certain knowledge, while Vico saw life as probablistic, prone to chance and opportunity, that does not obey geometrical 100%-certain rules.
This is a causing a lot of confusion. A “geometrical” view, looking for 100% certainty used to be called rationalist, going way back to Plato, and the probability-oriented view used to be called pragmatist or empirical in philosophy, and Eliezer inverted it by importing mathemathical terminology where rational choices are based on accurate probabilities, so now the terminology got less clear.
This is not a big issue, just be aware that it is a changing terminology.
For starters, basically anyone cooking from a socialist cookbook. Oakeshott was the Professor of Political Science at the LSE and made friends with Hayek, they were trying to argue with the leftward shift they saw all around them including on the LSE, and the important aspect is here that the kind of socialism they argued with was not based on a practical organic tradition but on overly-theoretical “cookbooks”. Presumably, Oakeshott would not have resisted on these principles a leftward, or egalitarian shift that is based on organic elements that are tried in practice. But most socialism practiced in the era was of the kind that Nassim Taleb calls “ornithologists teaching birds to fly”.
Don’t be too attached to the word “Rationalism”, because it meant very different things in different times and different people. I think Eliezer took the term from mathemathical economics, but overally in philosophy LW-Rationalism used to be called Pragmatism, see Charles Sanders Peirce. And in philosophy or politics rationalism used to mean the same thing as “being logical” or “being theoretical” instead of being pragmatic or empirical. For example Descartes is associated with inventing rationalism-in-the-old-sense, but his main opponent Vico is closer to LW-Rationalism because Descartes was looking for sure, certain knowledge, while Vico saw life as probablistic, prone to chance and opportunity, that does not obey geometrical 100%-certain rules.
This is a causing a lot of confusion. A “geometrical” view, looking for 100% certainty used to be called rationalist, going way back to Plato, and the probability-oriented view used to be called pragmatist or empirical in philosophy, and Eliezer inverted it by importing mathemathical terminology where rational choices are based on accurate probabilities, so now the terminology got less clear.
This is not a big issue, just be aware that it is a changing terminology.