To safely use rationality, you have to be postrational. Else rationality will use you as tool. What rationality wants is neatness, not truth
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Neatly wrapping up the discussion on rationality. Nothing wrong here.
@Meaningness1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don’t like the term “postrational” because it sounds like it implies anti-rational.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I'd have to know what "post-rational" means before venturing an opinion. But I'm not yet post-hyphen.
@vgr1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
intro to “meta-rationality” fwiw:https://meaningness.com/metablog/bongard-meta-rationality …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
I'm afraid I'm complete out of sync with modern trends in philosophy, esp. since discovering John Searle.
@vgr2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you like Searle, it may be worth going backward and sideways, to the thinkers he drew on and talked to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Backwards means Wittgenstein. Meh. I have my own sideways inclinations - Lakoff, Johnson, Jones, Metzinger, de Waal etc
@vgr1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also the American institutional school: Talcott Parsons, Thorstein Veblen, e.g. And JL Austin on speech act theory.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And Searle and Hubert Dreyfus were in constant dialog, so there’s significant influence in both directions there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And Goffman, and Bourdieu..
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.