Now I understand that we are talking with two completely different frames of reference. When I write about meta-rationalists, I’m specifically referring to Chapman and Gworley and the like. You have obviously a much wider tradition in mind, on which I don’t necessarily have an opinion. Everything I said needs to be restricted to this much smaller context.
On other points of your answer:
yes, there are important antecedents, but also important novelties too;
identification of what you consider to be the relevant corpus of ‘old’ meta-rationality would be appreciated, mainly of deity as a simplifying nontrivial hypothesis;
about inherently mysteriousness, it’s claimed in the linked post of this page, first paragraph: ” I had come to terms with the idea that my thoughts might never be fully explicable”.
Now I understand that we are talking with two completely different frames of reference.
When I write about meta-rationalists, I’m specifically referring to Chapman and Gworley and the like. You have obviously a much wider tradition in mind, on which I don’t necessarily have an opinion. Everything I said needs to be restricted to this much smaller context.
On other points of your answer:
yes, there are important antecedents, but also important novelties too;
identification of what you consider to be the relevant corpus of ‘old’ meta-rationality would be appreciated, mainly of deity as a simplifying nontrivial hypothesis;
about inherently mysteriousness, it’s claimed in the linked post of this page, first paragraph: ” I had come to terms with the idea that my thoughts might never be fully explicable”.