this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
328 points (98.0% liked)

Philosophy

1805 readers
6 users here now

Discussion of philosophy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zout@fedia.io 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Afaik rationalism was named so by other people; i.e. the first classical rationalist was Descartes, but his death pre-dates the first use of the term rationalism. Objectivism is a whole different story...

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] zout@fedia.io 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I am indeed, because the one with the capital R is more fringe to me, and there is no context pointing to that one.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The context is that the meme is making fun of it, which makes no sense for the epistemological version.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The further context is that you posted this in the Philosophy community, which draws my mind more toward historical thinkers than modern groups that use “rational” to sound smart.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

plenty of modern philosophers. If you think philosophy is only about historical old men, that's on you.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You've argued this with at least two people, I think the confusion can be forgiven.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I can excuse the confusion, but I don't get why people are defensive about it. is their self-worth tied to how well they identify philosophy schools?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

I didn't think they were being defensive...

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I had a few modern philosophers as professors in college when I minored in it. Based on a glimpse at the wikipedia article you shared, I’m hesitant to call these modern rationalists philosophers. Sophists sounds more appropriate.

I just thought there was some additional context that you missed which would explain the confusion some people are having. I will easily admit that it is my fault for thinking of historic philosophers whose ideas are still discussed today before a fringe group from Silicon Valley that uses the same terminology.

[–] remer@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

“Rationalism” is that weird cult-like movement that spun off the zizian cult. The Behind the Bastards podcast had a few episodes on the zizian and rationalism groups.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Difficult to see Ayn Rand seriously

[–] crt0o@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think rationalism is more about even being able to acquire true knowledge rationally and that rationality should be our main source of knowledge (in contrast to spiritual revelation for example, or empiricism for that fact, but that doesn't exactly hold up well). In other words it's an epistemological position about being right, not an outright proclamation that rationalism itself is right.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I think rationalism is more about even being able to acquire true knowledge rationally and that rationality should be our main source of knowledge

Are you talking about rationalism or Rationalism?

[–] zo0@programming.dev 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I never fails to make me laugh that Descartes was like "Hmm I can't just follow faith, I need to be a rational person" And he just reached the same conclusions as before with his rationale!

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 11 points 11 months ago

So many philosophers did this! My favourite is Hegel, who 'rationally' reached the conclusion that German was the best language, Prussia was the best country and Protestantism was the best religion. Nothing to do with the fact that he'd been raised in German-speaking Prussian Protestantism, oh no.

[–] crt0o@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I did not know that existed...

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sadly, not only it exists, but it's the philosophical underpinning behind the current Fascist takeover of the USA.

[–] crt0o@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Huh, that's interesting, reading the wikipedia page, it didn't even seem that terrible, I don't really understand how "effective altruism" and "hyper-utilitarianism" can lead you to that

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wikipedia by default tries to stay neutral. There's plenty of articles to read about Eliezer Yudkowsky and LessWrong and his influence in Fascists and Grifters. There's even a whole comm making fun of them: !sneerclub@awful.systems

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why are you arbitrarily capitalizing one of them? The link you have for capital R doesn't capitalize the name other than in the title, or at the start of sentences.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

For distinction.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago

It's the professorial version of choosing your own nickname.

[–] chuso@fedia.io 2 points 11 months ago

Isn't one of the main rationalist blogs named LessWrong? I mean, it's almost like the meme itself.