Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/rationalist"
(I'll probably want to expand this...) |
m (some reworking, after setting improvements to related pages) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am a '''card-carrying [[rationalist]]'''. | I am a '''card-carrying [[rationalist]]'''. | ||
| − | I was inspired to | + | I was inspired to do this by [[Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching (Terry Eagleton)|Terry Eagleton's infamous review]] of ''[[The God Delusion]]''. Eagleton makes a disparaging remark in his second sentence about "card-carrying rationalists like [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]]", which started me thinking: in what universe is it a bad thing to be [[rational]]? How can he possibly get away with making it sound like this is a bad thing? How can ''anyone'' possibly get away with thinking rationality is a bad thing? |
| − | So I've decided to stand up for rationality, and carry a card espousing my allegiance to it. | + | So I've decided to stand up for [[rationality]], and carry a card espousing my allegiance to it. |
==My Definition== | ==My Definition== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Rationalism does not ignore emotion and intuitive feeling, but recognizes that the universe is far too complex a place for there to be any rigorously provable "correct" answer for everything; it does, however, consider that some problems are more subject to logical rigor than others. | Rationalism does not ignore emotion and intuitive feeling, but recognizes that the universe is far too complex a place for there to be any rigorously provable "correct" answer for everything; it does, however, consider that some problems are more subject to logical rigor than others. | ||
| − | Rationality is the basis of sanity; deliberately ignoring rational arguments is an indication of insanity | + | [[Rationality]] is the basis of sanity; deliberately ignoring rational arguments is an indication of ignorance, dishonesty, or insanity. |
Revision as of 21:44, 10 June 2008
I am a card-carrying rationalist.
I was inspired to do this by Terry Eagleton's infamous review of The God Delusion. Eagleton makes a disparaging remark in his second sentence about "card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins", which started me thinking: in what universe is it a bad thing to be rational? How can he possibly get away with making it sound like this is a bad thing? How can anyone possibly get away with thinking rationality is a bad thing?
So I've decided to stand up for rationality, and carry a card espousing my allegiance to it.
My Definition
Rationalism is the belief that better solutions arise from conscious, deliberate analysis of the facts (objective and subjective), rather than by depending on authority, tradition, scripture, or any other method of determining truth.
Rationalism does not ignore emotion and intuitive feeling, but recognizes that the universe is far too complex a place for there to be any rigorously provable "correct" answer for everything; it does, however, consider that some problems are more subject to logical rigor than others.
Rationality is the basis of sanity; deliberately ignoring rational arguments is an indication of ignorance, dishonesty, or insanity.