Talk:Rationality

	This Philosophy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Suggest redirect to Rationalism.--Bob^{bing up} 05:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I support such a redirect. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Better than nothing for sure. Still two different things. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 05:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Do the ayes have it, then? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a significant difference between rationalism, which is a philosophical position (or several, actually), and the much broader rationality. I suggest two articles. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I cede to you superior knowledge in the matter. Though I will express stern disapproval if I come back tomorrow and find it still in its current form. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:34, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for being bitchy earlier

But I have a horrible stomach ache, and coming from a discipline where this is an on-going (and going and going and going...) debate, and a debate I constantly had with an ex of mine, I felt really snarky and nasty about it. I hope this edit is better. Researcher 23:18, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Who are you talking to Researcher? No matter, I forgive you for what it's worth. --Damo^Hi 23:25, 9 November 2008 (EST)

The pomo person who doubled the length of the article by adding why rationality is worthless. Omnirizon or something like that. Researcher 23:27, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Omni certainly has a valid point here. "Rational" is essentially a normative term and as far as I see it, the attempts to label this or that particular worldview as "rational" or "irrational" are simply a case of a given discourse trying to establish itself as dominant over others. Researcher, I must also admit that I do not give a lot for your argument by reference to the natural sciences. The existence of natural laws are not the same as the existence of "an underlying logic" to the world. The natural sciences can be used to explain natural phenomena, not to support specific discourses. (Not that they don't try anyway.) --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

After the merge...

...is this going to end up a redirect to rationalism? I think it would be a good idea. ħuman 22:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I still maintain that these are different concepts. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 02:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The main reason I say to do it is most of our articles are "isms", as opposed to "ists". However, this is an "ality", so may require care. However, he bulk of the article is now at rationalism. What should be here, save a few shots less of your favorite liquor? ħuman 02:24, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't quite follow your drift (liquor?), but "rationalism" refers to a philosophical position (or range of positions, actually), while "rationality" describes a certain mode of behaviour or thinking. Those are not exactly the same things. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 02:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Post mod

The post-modernist rambling is duplicated. It's both here and at Rationalism. Let's merge the two and reduce the post-modernism to a more appropriate size.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)