4 ms·

I think the problem most left-wing people would have with the rationalist thing is that left wing culture is a culture of reading, especially when it comes to p

I think the problem most left-wing people would have with the rationalist thing is that left wing culture is a culture of reading, especially when it comes to philosophy. That's true from the most hardcore (for instance, YPG rebels in rojava are broadly united under Ocalan, who is first and foremost a thinker), to the most wishy-washy (most hippies will happily talk your ear off about Buddhism). So the problem with rationalism is kind of obvious in the name. Rationalism, if you read philosophy, already has a meaning. It means people who believe that rationality comes prior to experience. That's not the way the 'rationalists' are using it, and what's more, the way they are using it is kinda crude, even if we ignore the fact it displays a kind of illiteracy, or at least, a disinterest in the history of thought, to re-use a really common term in a totally unrelated way. That's also what comes across from the stuff they write. What I've read is clever, well written, well thought out, but also profoundly ignorant of the tradition of thinking about the topics they're interested in. You can't help but be crude if you just try a naive response, without first looking at how other people have addressed the problem at hand. So it comes across as the philosophical equivalent of that guy you met once who's convinced he has invented a new kind of maths without the number zero, because 'zero doesn't exist'. It might have been an interesting debate 2000 years ago, but things have moved on.

quacked 7y ago
You're a little incorrect, but understandably so; the term "rationalist" refers to "rational thinking", which in turn is a term snatched from Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow", which summarizes a great deal of revolutionary findings in the fields of cognitive psychology. However, I agree- they should have picked another name. "Rationalism" already exists. Furthermore, it's an arrogant name to have- calling your group "rational" implies that anyone who's not in your group is not rational.
- edanm 7y ago
  You're wrong in your history there. Kahnemans book came out long after the online rationality group was built.
  - quacked 7y ago
    Ooh, you're right. I thought it came out closer to the actual date of his research.
- mistermann 7y ago
  2 hour discussion between Daniel Kahneman and Sam Harris, well worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY
- pasabagi 7y ago
  I don't understand. Rationalism in the philosophy world goes back to Descartes. I think that's when it was an explicit school of thought, perhaps a hundred years later at the most. I also rather like the philosophy distinction between rationalism and empricism (strangely enough, the online 'rationalists' seem to be empiricists) since it's a division between traditions with differing but obviously valuable approaches to how people know things - rather than one side simply taking the name to claim some kind of high ground. The name actually illustrates something distinctive about each group's thought.
  - aeorgnoieang 7y ago
    The contemporary "rationalists" don't ascribe to philosophical rationalism.
mooseburger 7y ago
This is very true, and I actually enjoy reading Slate Star Codex. I was pretty shocked at how insightful the Socratic dialogues are, when I tried reading them recently.
quacked 7y ago
I can't figure out how to edit my comment, but my first paragraph to my earlier reply correcting you is incorrect. Second paragraph stands.
aeorgnoieang 7y ago
Yes, 'rationalism', is a specific thing in the academic discipline of philosophy, but the rationalist community isn't an academic community so using a term that existed and meant something even before the specific academic jargon was coined only seems problematic if you somehow believe the academic philosophers should always and forever be granted linguistic priority. And anyways, I suspect the idea that "rationality comes prior to experience" is almost certainly true, albeit in a weak, tho profound, sense. For one, nothing can learn, i.e. form or update beliefs or theories, without a pre-existing algorithm to do so. > ... That's not the way the 'rationalists' are using it, and what's more, the way they are using it is kinda crude, even if we ignore the fact it displays a kind of illiteracy, or at least, a disinterest in the history of thought, to re-use a really common term in a totally unrelated way. > > That's also what comes across from the stuff they write. What I've read is clever, well written, well thought out, but also profoundly ignorant of the tradition of thinking about the topics they're interested in. You can't help but be crude if you just try a naive response, without first looking at how other people have addressed the problem at hand. So it comes across as the philosophical equivalent of that guy you met once who's convinced he has invented a new kind of maths without the number zero, because 'zero doesn't exist'. It might have been an interesting debate 2000 years ago, but things have moved on. The rationalist community is a loose agglomeration of people interested in a bunch of different topics, with the kind of binding focus on forming or acquiring (more) accurate beliefs and acting (more) effectively in the real world. There's an incredibility variety and diversity of interests, backgrounds, and knowledge across a huge number of philosophies, schools, academic disciplines, and intellectual pursuits. It's interesting that you claim that they "[display] a kind of illiteracy" as it seems clear to me, from reading a lot of the work of the members of the rationalist community, that (a) a lot of those members are perfectly aware of philosophical rationalism; (b) the community doesn't ascribe to anything that anyone terms 'rationalism'; and (c) almost everyone rejects philosophical rationalism as being true or useful. Among the various members of the community, some of whom don't identify as members too, there's a lot of frequent and deep referencing of academic philosophy, so the claim that the community as a whole is unaware of "how other people have addressed the problem at hand" is just flat wrong. But the rationalist community is more like pre-professional science in that almost everyone is an amateur, there's almost no (formal) gatekeeping. So yes, it's absolutely true that there are many people in or interacting the community that are relatively ignorant of lots of different things like your example of someone convinced that they've invented a new school of mathematics. And besides all of that, there's a lot of utility, to lots of people, particularly the participants, in debating something that you or academic philosophers might be convinced 'everyone' else has moved on from.
whenchamenia 7y ago
>Left wing culture is a culture of reading. Not sure reddit counts as reading. Citation needed, sounds like partisian bs.

quacked 7y ago

You're a little incorrect, but understandably so; the term "rationalist" refers to "rational thinking", which in turn is a term snatched from Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow", which summarizes a great deal of revolutionary findings in the fields of cognitive psychology. However, I agree- they should have picked another name. "Rationalism" already exists. Furthermore, it's an arrogant name to have- calling your group "rational" implies that anyone who's not in your group is not rational.

edanm 7y ago
You're wrong in your history there. Kahnemans book came out long after the online rationality group was built.
- quacked 7y ago
  Ooh, you're right. I thought it came out closer to the actual date of his research.
mistermann 7y ago
2 hour discussion between Daniel Kahneman and Sam Harris, well worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY
pasabagi 7y ago
I don't understand. Rationalism in the philosophy world goes back to Descartes. I think that's when it was an explicit school of thought, perhaps a hundred years later at the most. I also rather like the philosophy distinction between rationalism and empricism (strangely enough, the online 'rationalists' seem to be empiricists) since it's a division between traditions with differing but obviously valuable approaches to how people know things - rather than one side simply taking the name to claim some kind of high ground. The name actually illustrates something distinctive about each group's thought.
- aeorgnoieang 7y ago
  The contemporary "rationalists" don't ascribe to philosophical rationalism.

mooseburger 7y ago

This is very true, and I actually enjoy reading Slate Star Codex. I was pretty shocked at how insightful the Socratic dialogues are, when I tried reading them recently.

quacked 7y ago

I can't figure out how to edit my comment, but my first paragraph to my earlier reply correcting you is incorrect. Second paragraph stands.

aeorgnoieang 7y ago

Yes, 'rationalism', is a specific thing in the academic discipline of philosophy, but the rationalist community isn't an academic community so using a term that existed and meant something even before the specific academic jargon was coined only seems problematic if you somehow believe the academic philosophers should always and forever be granted linguistic priority. And anyways, I suspect the idea that "rationality comes prior to experience" is almost certainly true, albeit in a weak, tho profound, sense. For one, nothing can learn, i.e. form or update beliefs or theories, without a pre-existing algorithm to do so. > ... That's not the way the 'rationalists' are using it, and what's more, the way they are using it is kinda crude, even if we ignore the fact it displays a kind of illiteracy, or at least, a disinterest in the history of thought, to re-use a really common term in a totally unrelated way. > > That's also what comes across from the stuff they write. What I've read is clever, well written, well thought out, but also profoundly ignorant of the tradition of thinking about the topics they're interested in. You can't help but be crude if you just try a naive response, without first looking at how other people have addressed the problem at hand. So it comes across as the philosophical equivalent of that guy you met once who's convinced he has invented a new kind of maths without the number zero, because 'zero doesn't exist'. It might have been an interesting debate 2000 years ago, but things have moved on. The rationalist community is a loose agglomeration of people interested in a bunch of different topics, with the kind of binding focus on forming or acquiring (more) accurate beliefs and acting (more) effectively in the real world. There's an incredibility variety and diversity of interests, backgrounds, and knowledge across a huge number of philosophies, schools, academic disciplines, and intellectual pursuits. It's interesting that you claim that they "[display] a kind of illiteracy" as it seems clear to me, from reading a lot of the work of the members of the rationalist community, that (a) a lot of those members are perfectly aware of philosophical rationalism; (b) the community doesn't ascribe to anything that anyone terms 'rationalism'; and (c) almost everyone rejects philosophical rationalism as being true or useful. Among the various members of the community, some of whom don't identify as members too, there's a lot of frequent and deep referencing of academic philosophy, so the claim that the community as a whole is unaware of "how other people have addressed the problem at hand" is just flat wrong. But the rationalist community is more like pre-professional science in that almost everyone is an amateur, there's almost no (formal) gatekeeping. So yes, it's absolutely true that there are many people in or interacting the community that are relatively ignorant of lots of different things like your example of someone convinced that they've invented a new school of mathematics. And besides all of that, there's a lot of utility, to lots of people, particularly the participants, in debating something that you or academic philosophers might be convinced 'everyone' else has moved on from.

whenchamenia 7y ago

>Left wing culture is a culture of reading. Not sure reddit counts as reading. Citation needed, sounds like partisian bs.