The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

why privilege the real over the imaginal anyway? > real things tend to last longer { but are no more meaningful as a result }

why not? anything can be imagined, but without a criterion of quality about what *should* be imagined, why imagine anything at all? even solipsists and hedonists (tacitly) privilege reality, just the reductive, comfortable, parts of reality (their own cope)

Once you really understand the chaos entailed by subjectivism, you can only believe in rationalism, even if it's just the rationalism of a subjectivist; rationalism builds walkable ground that won't fall out from under, subjective nonsense about angels, gods, and ghosts does not.

Kierkegaard says faith is more solid ground than fact. I must conclude Kierkegaard has not tried both.

(classical) rationalism is foundationally subjectivist- and its “unshakiness” is *exactly* like the unshakiness of faith, another subjectivist moral technology kant’s a prioris are Idealist, after all

I mean more like Popper. Pre-Yudkowskian Tarskian scientism basically.

oh, well, i think popper has enormous merit, but he was explicitly *anti-foundational* shakiness is a virtue to popper, that shake is a clue to the next Problem (in the pragmatic sense) for us to solve

I don't think most people realize that their entire ability to do rationality of any kind is contingent on having a brain that developed in a certain inductively predictable environment, and if induction breaks and the environment radically changes reason becomes impossible.