5 ms·

On a fundamental level, the decision to stick with 'rationality' as the basis off of which to make decisions is its own kind of ideology.

stcredzero 8y ago
Rationality is just a tool, which can be used or misused. That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well. The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined.
- pl1234 8y ago
  "The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined." This is not the rational statement you seem to think it is. A lot of cultures/religions think they are the saviors of humanity, do you really think it is different this time? How do you even quantify the total "human suffering" pre and post-1800? You can't, dig into it and you will find it's a morally loaded term. There can be specific quantifications like measuring pain with a likert scale, but these are not the same as an overall "human suffering" factor, any attempt at measurement introduces subjectivity. What you have is a hardcore religious belief, not a rational one.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  People would do well to remember that the ideology of the Nazis had deep roots in rationalism and ideas about the enlightenment. Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. A decent discussion on this topic: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_did_the_philosophy_of_the_enlightenment_led/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_d...
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. No disagreement at all.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well Of course it does. Almost every person in the history of mankind will have claimed to act rationally, including the scientist inventing better means of wheat production on fewer acres, as well as the voodoo witch doctor trying to do the same thing. By necessity, whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality Everything that works turns out to work through rational principles subject to the scientific method, enabling improvement through engineering, often enabling the creation of wealth. Funny that.
weberc2 8y ago
What do you mean, exactly? 1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;) 2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article? 3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)? 4) Something else entirely?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  Rationality is not ideology, but epistemology and ideology are often closely related. Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    I think of it as different errors in perspective about what is rational, but rationality is still the virtue regardless.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      You're redefining words; rationality means something much more specific than "not magical thinking".
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  The mistake is to think you can reach a state of "objective" to begin with.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Spot on. The word "rationality" is thrown around as it was possible (and desirable) to reach a objective view on every subject.
p1necone 8y ago
I think you need to justify this claim. I don't think that fundamentally rationality is just the same as any ideology, in fact it seems fundamentally wrong to me, the same way that claiming that opinions trump observable facts would be to me.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Can you point me to a system of logic that is both able to make substantial claims and for which every statement in that system can be proven. Mathematics says you cannot (the incompleteness theorems), so there will always be a fundamental truth you will need to subscribe to. This indicates that those claiming 'rationality' almost certainly have a belief that is irrational even according to themselves (if they are honest enough to admit it). Here is an example. Suppose we are arguing about the need for a certain tax. The point of contention is whether the tax will majnly benefit the rich or the poor. You start out with an argument: even if the tax benefits those not in poverty, the effects will trickle down. Despite your opinions on trickle down economics, the argument was unsound at the very first words. 'Even if' is a form of argument via excluded middle. It presupposes that either tbe tax will help those in poverty or it will not. The law of excluded middle forms unsound logical systems. There are ways around it but i guarantee you you will not see this in 'rational' discourse In the context of these everyday absurdities and the fact most logical systems are -- by necessity -- incomplete, its almost inavariably more interesting to talk about the unproven statements (the ideology) than the system of logic surrounding it. In other words, the ideology is ultimately what matters, even to rational thinkers.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Correct. This is what the Age of Reason and The Age of Enlightenment were all about. Philosophy underpins ideology to a large extent.
trashtester 8y ago
"Rationalism" is an ideology$. It elevates ideas arrived at by rational arguments to a special status. Other sources of knowledge, such as empirical knowledge, culture and tradition as well as biological instincts and gut feelings are often disregarded by rationalists which can potentially prevent the adherents from reaching their goals. "Rational" is also a word that can be used for rhetorical purposes. If one claims that something is "rational", it is often specifically because it is not obvious to the audience that it IS rational. The claim is an attempt to influence the listener to believe the truthfulness of the something. Similarly to when people say "trust me", such a claim may in itself be a reason to be a bit cautious. "Rationality" is a tool than can be wielded in many ways and for many purposes. Properly used, it is a good source to knowledge, but it needs to be combined with empirical knowledge as well as heuristical information stored in social groups and even our DNA, even when not fully understood. Edit: $ From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded. Since Rationalism deals with epistemology, it is technically excluded from the definition, as long as the Rationalism is in good faith, and not driven by ulterior motives. This distinction does not make a difference for the rest of the argument.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded Considering there are epistemologic ideologies, I'm not sure how you can claim this. For example, in the West (and now common throughout the world, since most of the world has adopted Western epistemology, whether they admit it or not), we believe in the scientific method -- that if we can observe, measure, and replicate an experiment, we have established 'empirical truth'. The idea that such a process can establish universal truth (rather than simply be individual measurements of how the universe acted at a certain point in time) is based on the Abrahamic notion of an unchanging God. It is certainly an ideology in and of itself. It may be a useful ideology, but claiming that it is not an ideology is just dishonest.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    You are right. I checked the definition on wikipedia after writing my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology But further reading shows that my correction was wrong, and my initial assumption was correct. Thanks for pointing this out :)

stcredzero 8y ago

Rationality is just a tool, which can be used or misused. That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well. The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined.

pl1234 8y ago
"The rationalist view and rationalist methods have created more wealth and alleviated more human suffering than most any mystic of the world pre-1800s would ever have imagined." This is not the rational statement you seem to think it is. A lot of cultures/religions think they are the saviors of humanity, do you really think it is different this time? How do you even quantify the total "human suffering" pre and post-1800? You can't, dig into it and you will find it's a morally loaded term. There can be specific quantifications like measuring pain with a likert scale, but these are not the same as an overall "human suffering" factor, any attempt at measurement introduces subjectivity. What you have is a hardcore religious belief, not a rational one.
throwaway2048 8y ago
People would do well to remember that the ideology of the Nazis had deep roots in rationalism and ideas about the enlightenment. Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. A decent discussion on this topic: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_did_the_philosophy_of_the_enlightenment_led/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_d...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others. No disagreement at all.
tathougies 8y ago
> That said, it has a really impressive list of accomplishments when it is used well Of course it does. Almost every person in the history of mankind will have claimed to act rationally, including the scientist inventing better means of wheat production on fewer acres, as well as the voodoo witch doctor trying to do the same thing. By necessity, whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality Everything that works turns out to work through rational principles subject to the scientific method, enabling improvement through engineering, often enabling the creation of wealth. Funny that.

weberc2 8y ago

What do you mean, exactly? 1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;) 2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article? 3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)? 4) Something else entirely?

throwawayjava 8y ago
Rationality is not ideology, but epistemology and ideology are often closely related. Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I think of it as different errors in perspective about what is rational, but rationality is still the virtue regardless.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    You're redefining words; rationality means something much more specific than "not magical thinking".
throwaway2048 8y ago
The mistake is to think you can reach a state of "objective" to begin with.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Spot on. The word "rationality" is thrown around as it was possible (and desirable) to reach a objective view on every subject.

p1necone 8y ago

I think you need to justify this claim. I don't think that fundamentally rationality is just the same as any ideology, in fact it seems fundamentally wrong to me, the same way that claiming that opinions trump observable facts would be to me.

tathougies 8y ago
Can you point me to a system of logic that is both able to make substantial claims and for which every statement in that system can be proven. Mathematics says you cannot (the incompleteness theorems), so there will always be a fundamental truth you will need to subscribe to. This indicates that those claiming 'rationality' almost certainly have a belief that is irrational even according to themselves (if they are honest enough to admit it). Here is an example. Suppose we are arguing about the need for a certain tax. The point of contention is whether the tax will majnly benefit the rich or the poor. You start out with an argument: even if the tax benefits those not in poverty, the effects will trickle down. Despite your opinions on trickle down economics, the argument was unsound at the very first words. 'Even if' is a form of argument via excluded middle. It presupposes that either tbe tax will help those in poverty or it will not. The law of excluded middle forms unsound logical systems. There are ways around it but i guarantee you you will not see this in 'rational' discourse In the context of these everyday absurdities and the fact most logical systems are -- by necessity -- incomplete, its almost inavariably more interesting to talk about the unproven statements (the ideology) than the system of logic surrounding it. In other words, the ideology is ultimately what matters, even to rational thinkers.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

Correct. This is what the Age of Reason and The Age of Enlightenment were all about. Philosophy underpins ideology to a large extent.

trashtester 8y ago

"Rationalism" is an ideology$. It elevates ideas arrived at by rational arguments to a special status. Other sources of knowledge, such as empirical knowledge, culture and tradition as well as biological instincts and gut feelings are often disregarded by rationalists which can potentially prevent the adherents from reaching their goals. "Rational" is also a word that can be used for rhetorical purposes. If one claims that something is "rational", it is often specifically because it is not obvious to the audience that it IS rational. The claim is an attempt to influence the listener to believe the truthfulness of the something. Similarly to when people say "trust me", such a claim may in itself be a reason to be a bit cautious. "Rationality" is a tool than can be wielded in many ways and for many purposes. Properly used, it is a good source to knowledge, but it needs to be combined with empirical knowledge as well as heuristical information stored in social groups and even our DNA, even when not fully understood. Edit: $ From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded. Since Rationalism deals with epistemology, it is technically excluded from the definition, as long as the Rationalism is in good faith, and not driven by ulterior motives. This distinction does not make a difference for the rest of the argument.

tathougies 8y ago
> From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded Considering there are epistemologic ideologies, I'm not sure how you can claim this. For example, in the West (and now common throughout the world, since most of the world has adopted Western epistemology, whether they admit it or not), we believe in the scientific method -- that if we can observe, measure, and replicate an experiment, we have established 'empirical truth'. The idea that such a process can establish universal truth (rather than simply be individual measurements of how the universe acted at a certain point in time) is based on the Abrahamic notion of an unchanging God. It is certainly an ideology in and of itself. It may be a useful ideology, but claiming that it is not an ideology is just dishonest.
- trashtester 8y ago
  You are right. I checked the definition on wikipedia after writing my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology But further reading shows that my correction was wrong, and my initial assumption was correct. Thanks for pointing this out :)