There is a pervasive pattern of discussion about “rationalism” versus “post-rationalism” versus “meta-rationalism” and various other ways of trying to carve reasoning up into movements or communities or ideologies. This is all a mistake.
-
-
My most concise explanation of what “meta-rationality” means, and how it relates to “rationality” (as I use that word), is here: https://meaningness.com/eggplant/terms#rationalism …pic.twitter.com/TvBOrrIM5I
-
Ya. I find this to just be academic expansion. I don’t find these extra words more precise. They take an idea that is fairly simple and make it seem complex by trying to analyze it into parts. But it is simple.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’m rejecting the definition that you are calling formal/technical/systemic rationality. If one of those is too limited to encompass a better theory, I call that irrational. Rationality must be “likely to be effective” within what we know and are trying to.
-
So I’m explicitly just advocating a different semantics. I have what I take to be *reasons* for preferring my semantics. I think it is “likely to be effective” at keeping broad communication more easy and productive.
- 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.