Comment by freejazz
4 days ago
>The reason why people can't be bothered to get formal training is that modern philosophy doesn't seem that useful.
But rationalism is?
4 days ago
>The reason why people can't be bothered to get formal training is that modern philosophy doesn't seem that useful.
But rationalism is?
Yeh, probably.
Imagine that you're living in a big scary world, and there's someone there telling you that being scared isn't particularly useful, that if you slow down and think about the things happening to you, most of your worries will become tractable and some will even disappear. It probably works at first. Then they sic Roko's Basilisk on you, and you're a gibbering lunatic 2 weeks later...
Hah
Well, maybe. It seems at least adjacent to the stuff that's been making a lot of people rich lately.
It’s also adjacent to sociopathy, which is more likely the driving factor behind that wealth generation.
Did not know "sociopathy" is a precursor to wealth generation. I guess I'm in luck! Any day now!
I think the argument is that philosophy hasn't advanced much in the last 1000 years, but it''s still 10,000 years ahead of whatever is coming out of the rationalist camp.
Nature abhors a vaccum. After the October revolution, the genuine study of humanities was extinguished in Russia and replaced with the mindless repetition of rather inane doctrines. But people with awakened and open minds would always ask questions and seek answers.
Those would, of course, be people with no formal training in history or philosophy (as the study of history where you aren't allowed to question Marxist doctrine would be self-evidently useless). Their training would be in the natural sciences or mathematics. And without knowing how to properly reason about history or philosophy, they may reach fairly kooky conclusions.
Hence why Rationalism can be though as the same class of phenomena as Fomenko's chronology (or if you want to be slightly more generous, Shafarevich's philosophical tracts).