Ordinary Banana

1/ One thing I don't get about postrationalists is, we realized that there is something deeply wrong with rationalist philosophy and metaphysics in particular, right? So this calls for a deep reexamination of these subjects, and the manner in which rationalists went so wrong.

2/ So in this reexamination of these subjects, did you notice that many of the failures of rationalist philosophy are already noted in the philosophical literature? And that those philosophers then go on to build definite philosophies *in line with* postrat predilections?

3/ But I see postrats expressing wrong rationalist philosophy, making statements that assume it, making the same sorts of general philosophical mistakes, not having read the literature ALL the time...

4/ I've seen a lot of skepticism of truth, despite that flying in the face of ordinary practical experience. I've seen lots of at least implicit materialism, especially wrt the brain and the problems with that are well known and need not be stated

5/ I've seen representational and computational theories of mind which are similarly fraught. I've seen model-first theorizing (as opposed to reality-first) that handwaves the points at which the model connects with and sees reality. Lots of reductionism of many sorts.

6/ I've seen really basic, sweeping, and sloppy atheist criticisms of "religion" or "monotheism" that don't even come close to making contact with most of the specific real things that live underneath those reality-hiding labels

7/ I've seen similarly overreaching criticisms of "academia". There is still a great deal of good work done there. The best insights are in old books. We're mostly amateurs here. (why do my favourite well-known and postrat-friendly authors never get mentioned?)

8/ This wouldn't be as much of a problem if postrat insight porn didn't bump against delicate philosophical issues so frequently. The number of situations and angles is very broad, allowing for lots of postrat play, but the truth is still very narrow and tight.