Meta-rationalism is based on an understanding that reality is unfixably “nebulous”—there is no correct description of it. I think I may hear that in what you said, also?
-
-
Well, that's certainly central to my own personal worldview, but I can't quite connect it to CFAR rationality. Perhaps the platonic form of CFAR rationality holds that there definitely is "more correct" but maybe there isn't a "most correct". idk,
@juliagalef, thoughts?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
tbh, I mostly try to stay away from debates over whether there is one objectively correct "Truth," or "Reality," bc I find them too confusing, & they don't end up seeming relevant to real decision-making anyway
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
That’s my take also. In any case, we don’t now have The Correct Description, and there’s no likelihood of getting it soon, so we have to figure out how to act rationally without one.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
… and this is “meta-rational” because, to apply any formally rational method, you need *some* description, which means you need to choose one; and that choice is about *how* best to apply rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Hm, so maybe "CFAR rationality" can really be thought of as a meta-rationality that holds "Yes, there is a normative criterion according to which one ought judge which is 'best' when considering how best to apply different formally and informally rational methods. It's 'max EV'."
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, to the extent that it holds that there *is* a single normative criterion, I would categorize it as rationalist (and mistaken imo).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I guess another relevant point re: "CFAR rationality" is that it also uses the framework of adjudicating internal disputes. Like, noticing that part of you thinks/wants X and part of you thinks/wants Y, and approaching that like an intellectual disagreement
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Another point of enthusiastic agreement! Some touchstones for me on this: Robert Kegan; Kramer & Alstad; George Ainsle; Robert Bly; Michel Foucault. Very different, complementary approaches to working with internal disagreements.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
All discussed inhttps://meaningness.com/further-reading
-
-
Replying to @MimeticValue @Meaningness and
I'll add to this and assert Nietzsche was NOT an eternalist, as Chapman (to my understanding) defines the term.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.