You raise excellent points here, and I’m sympathetic to the approach you are taking. I certainly agree that minimizing conflict is worthwhile. On other points, the best way forward is not clear to me. Let me point out some possible objections and alternatives…
The main question for my readers now is probably “what even is this supposed thing ‘metarationality’? does it exist? why should I care about it?” So I see step 1 as pointing out as clearly as possible what it is, which involves pointing out how it’s different from rationality.
-
-
For anyone who holds rationality as a religion, that’s inevitably going to be confrontive, even if I emphasize that metarationality is in no way opposed to rationality, and indeed that neither can operate without the other *at all*.
-
If rationalism is something like “rationality is the pinnacle of understanding and all you need,” then rationalism has to be explicitly opposed in order to make metarationality visible.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.