I am wondering, if this difference makes a difference.
“Rationality” is of course a nominalisation—you can’t put it in a wheelbarrow—so it is an abstraction that can mean many things. “Rationalists” are more concrete.
However the activity of rationality is dependent on a carrier (the rationalist). No carrier, no rationality. The activity of rationality is messy, uncertain and fumbling. Would non-human carriers of rationality be less messy?. Maybe they would be quicker and the quickness would disguise the messiness. Maybe they would turn down fewer blind alleys, but surely they are as blind as us.
Thus I do not see a difference that makes a difference.
Yes!
Rationality is Messy, Uncertain and Fumbling.
The explanation afterwards looks Neat, Certain and Cut ’n Dried.
Say “Rationalists are” instead of “Rationality is” and I’ll agree with that.
I am wondering, if this difference makes a difference.
“Rationality” is of course a nominalisation—you can’t put it in a wheelbarrow—so it is an abstraction that can mean many things. “Rationalists” are more concrete.
However the activity of rationality is dependent on a carrier (the rationalist). No carrier, no rationality. The activity of rationality is messy, uncertain and fumbling. Would non-human carriers of rationality be less messy?. Maybe they would be quicker and the quickness would disguise the messiness. Maybe they would turn down fewer blind alleys, but surely they are as blind as us.
Thus I do not see a difference that makes a difference.