From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 August 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Although I realize that this definition of 'rationalism' is quite widespread aound here, I must admit I'm a little confused about the philosophical foundation behind it. It's obviously not wp:rationalism in the traditional Cartesian sense. Are we actually talking about wp:panrationalism or about wp:logical positivism, or something entirely different? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 09:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

More something like wp:Rationalist_movement--Bobbing up 12:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Ideally are article would discuss all of these including their relationship to science, religion, history, philosophy, ect. tmtoulouse irritate 11:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Should this be merged with Rationality?--Toffeeman 18:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Edit clashing... sorry if I was making it harder for someone to improve this while I was moving refs out of headers and decapping them, etc. I'll check back in in a bit. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:21, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry about crossing paths with you. We'll talk later. eek Carptrash 19:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)
No big deal. I had already done that edit but it got lost, and when I redid it after a series of small fixer-upper edits, I didn't leave an edit summary, so the diff just looked like I was nuking the quote. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:06, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, it was the first time I've used the Undo button ever - well barring out-and-out vandalism, and when I saw your name I was a bit confused but I knew that it was not vandalism. Anyway, I didn't mean to shout at you. Carptrash 21:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Like I said, no problem. No harm in testing people's buttons once in a while to see what happens when you press them ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)

What's with all the empty sections, allegedly badly summarised from something? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:02, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Empty sections[edit]

I see there was a comment about these from back in January, does anyone know what's supposed to go there? Oh, and can I get a glossary for the postmodernism section? I haven't the slightest idea what an "anomie" is, for instance. --Kels (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Anomie," I understand, means "a feeling like you are a ship without a rudder." But for the philosophical stuff here we should get TallMan, or Sir Sockpuppet, or whatever he calls himself these days, to do the filling-in, since he can speak the lingo. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I never did get Po-Mo babble. It always seemed like jargon for the sake of jargon. --Kels (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Worse; not even postmodernists know what their own blather means, if the Sokal affair is anything to go by. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I expect all that is one of the pitfalls of living entirely within a world of theory, it gets increasingly disconnected from anything useful or, indeed, understandable. --Kels (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Most philosophy is like that - as soon as it gets connected to anything useful or understandable, it becomes a branch of science. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Now if people would just realize that this also holds true for political philosophies... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have cut the empty sections. They were: "Aristotelian rationalism", "The deliverances of reason", and "Duty".--BobNot Jim 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-Modernism removed

A discussion of post-modernist theory doesn't really belong in a wiki dealing with objective truth. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Removed again. If you're going to keep adding it back, at least provide a reason why we should bother with such nonsense. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
What do you mean, we, BoN? But, at any rate, the post-modernist section has been included in aid of refuting it with a little reductio ad absurdum. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)