That is probably the first post of that site that doesn’t make me want to pull my hair out. I am too trying to create a taxonomy of the antithetical approaches to rationality. So far, I’ve classified them in two dimension: the existence of an objective truth (yes/no) and the fallibility of some part of human understanding (yes/no). On the other hand, I don’t feel that some political movements are against the method of rationality, as much as they are against the actual content of what said method has discovered. If one had the patience and if an alt-righter (say) had “climate change is a hoax” as a true objection, I believe that one could theoretically arrive at an agreement on what are the facts and what is a fair interpretation. Basically, I would just chuck political movements and their associated moral panic as generic tribalism.
Meta-rationalists have been promising a coherent account of meaning for nearly a century. Somehow, we’ve never delivered, although we think we understand it quite well. It’s time we put up or shut up.
I wholeheartedly agree on the last sentence. I also believe that to ‘overcome’ rationality, one needs transfinite computation, so good luck with that.
Just to locate it amongst the possible systematic approaches to life, that might serve as an introduction—for the general public—to what rationality is and how to practice it, to be put for example in a book or in a Youtube channel.
That is probably the first post of that site that doesn’t make me want to pull my hair out.
I am too trying to create a taxonomy of the antithetical approaches to rationality.
So far, I’ve classified them in two dimension: the existence of an objective truth (yes/no) and the fallibility of some part of human understanding (yes/no).
On the other hand, I don’t feel that some political movements are against the method of rationality, as much as they are against the actual content of what said method has discovered. If one had the patience and if an alt-righter (say) had “climate change is a hoax” as a true objection, I believe that one could theoretically arrive at an agreement on what are the facts and what is a fair interpretation. Basically, I would just chuck political movements and their associated moral panic as generic tribalism.
I wholeheartedly agree on the last sentence. I also believe that to ‘overcome’ rationality, one needs transfinite computation, so good luck with that.
Why are you trying to create a taxonomy of the antithetical approaches to rationality? What would you do with that once you had it?
I’m not opposed, mind, I just don’t see the use.
Just to locate it amongst the possible systematic approaches to life, that might serve as an introduction—for the general public—to what rationality is and how to practice it, to be put for example in a book or in a Youtube channel.