Maybe there’s another way to talk about the things that we consider “post” rationality? I certainly didn’t start out to adopt much the same language as post-modernists and living philosophers have, but they seem to be the only folks who have thought much about these issues before and so are the best source I know of for standard, shared terminology I can use. The alternatives would largely be to adopt Sanskrit words used in Indian philosophy or just make stuff up, the latter of which would lead to the same problems that already face rationalist discourse in that it has a lot of non-standard jargon that there are more standard terms for.
But then, if you adopt their jargon but do not differentiate enough your ideas, you’re going to be taken as a promoter of that point of view, and automatically discounted. By me, at least.
Cool things I learned from this article:
the term “capta” as opposed to “data”
reframing “scientism” as “the cargo cult of science” (which I now discovered it linked back to LessWrong… Alas, it only clicked for me now)
Less than cool things:
torekp counter-argument seems decisive to me
the post-rationalsts humus, so to speak.
Maybe there’s another way to talk about the things that we consider “post” rationality? I certainly didn’t start out to adopt much the same language as post-modernists and living philosophers have, but they seem to be the only folks who have thought much about these issues before and so are the best source I know of for standard, shared terminology I can use. The alternatives would largely be to adopt Sanskrit words used in Indian philosophy or just make stuff up, the latter of which would lead to the same problems that already face rationalist discourse in that it has a lot of non-standard jargon that there are more standard terms for.
But then, if you adopt their jargon but do not differentiate enough your ideas, you’re going to be taken as a promoter of that point of view, and automatically discounted.
By me, at least.