= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on LW's image problem: "Rationality" is suspicious - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
I do. As a rule of thumb, anyone booming the cause of truth, rationality, or common sense is usually trying to smuggle some particular belief in unargued on the back of it. (I've been around LW long enough that that prior is no longer relevant for this particular case. It does have an agenda, but one that is explicitly argued for.)
As well, anyone booing truth, rationality, or common sense, is usually trying to do the same, just by different means.
Voted up because it's intriguing that saying anything in favor of or against truth, rationality, or common sense is a danger sign.
That's plausible, it's just that my mind doesn't work that way. My filter is "is that interesting and plausible?" rather than "what might they be up to?".
Wait a minute, you're saying that talking about truth or rationality at all is suspicious? That'd be a pity. But now I understand the reactions of some of my acquaintances.
My mother, for instance often say that my philosophical views stems from a desire to control everything, or even plain fear (of death? of the unknown?). It looks like personal attacks (by dissolving the personal, historical causes of my beliefs, she dismisses the belief itself), but now I'm wondering if they're only rationalization for the bottom line "those beliefs are weird, and scary, and authoritarian and cold, and I don't like them".