On a fundamental level, the decision to stick with 'rationality' as the basis off of which to make decisions is its own kind of ideology.
"Rational" is also a word that can be used for rhetorical purposes. If one claims that something is "rational", it is often specifically because it is not obvious to the audience that it IS rational. The claim is an attempt to influence the listener to believe the truthfulness of the something.
Similarly to when people say "trust me", such a claim may in itself be a reason to be a bit cautious.
"Rationality" is a tool than can be wielded in many ways and for many purposes. Properly used, it is a good source to knowledge, but it needs to be combined with empirical knowledge as well as heuristical information stored in social groups and even our DNA, even when not fully understood.
Edit: $ From the definition of "Ideology", epistemology is specifically excluded. Since Rationalism deals with epistemology, it is technically excluded from the definition, as long as the Rationalism is in good faith, and not driven by ulterior motives. This distinction does not make a difference for the rest of the argument.
Considering there are epistemologic ideologies, I'm not sure how you can claim this.
For example, in the West (and now common throughout the world, since most of the world has adopted Western epistemology, whether they admit it or not), we believe in the scientific method -- that if we can observe, measure, and replicate an experiment, we have established 'empirical truth'. The idea that such a process can establish universal truth (rather than simply be individual measurements of how the universe acted at a certain point in time) is based on the Abrahamic notion of an unchanging God. It is certainly an ideology in and of itself. It may be a useful ideology, but claiming that it is not an ideology is just dishonest.
I checked the definition on wikipedia after writing my comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
But further reading shows that my correction was wrong, and my initial assumption was correct.
Thanks for pointing this out :)
Rationality is not an unmitigated good when not tempered with humanity and empathy for others.
A decent discussion on this topic:
https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6k2f7d/how_d...
No disagreement at all.
Of course it does. Almost every person in the history of mankind will have claimed to act rationally, including the scientist inventing better means of wheat production on fewer acres, as well as the voodoo witch doctor trying to do the same thing.
By necessity, whatever works is going to claim to have been inspired by rationality.
Everything that works turns out to work through rational principles subject to the scientific method, enabling improvement through engineering, often enabling the creation of wealth.
Funny that.
1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;)
2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article?
3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)?
4) Something else entirely?
Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
Objective theories for how to act (including morality), requires that all subjects that could possibly be covered by the theories are 100% in agreement with all axioms. Also, all theory on top of the axioms must be 100% stringent.
2) I think you take the argument the wrong way. Our ideologies tend to influence both what we perceive as rational as well as how important it is for us that something is rational (as opposed to socially acceptable, comfortable, self-serving or a number of other metrics we can use to measure the value of the "something")
3) Rationalism is a well documented ideology (see my other post).
The number of things that can be said universally objectively is so vanishingly small that it's not even worth considering them for the most part.
> Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology?
No. All people will label what they perceive as rational as desirable. The issue is that 'what we perceive as rational' is almost necessarily based in our underlying ideology.
> In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article?
What are you claiming is biologically hard-wired? First-order predicate logic? Propositional logic? If it's hard-wired, why are there college classes dealing with introducing the topic?
Moreover, the existence of languages that are unable to express first-order predicate logic indicate that it is not hard-coded.
Finally, given the variety of human language, it does not seem clear that you can make these claims of 'biological hard-wiring' without justification.
> Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)?
Can you please explain what system you use to reason rationally? Can it add two numbers together? If so, it has an ideology behind it (see the incompleteness theorems), as there are statements in your logic that it can never prove.
If your system is incapable of basic arithmetic, then I question the value it has in everyday problems.
> Something else entirely?
The constant claim I see on HN, reddit, and social media in the 21st century of people claiming to act 'rationally', via movements such as lesswrong, rationalwiki, etc, is that such motivations are not ideological. However, it is clear that they are ideological because they often elevate what amounts to first-order logic plus the scientific method as means of discovering truth. First order logic with the law of excluded middle is unsound, and the scientific method as a means of establishing truth is based in the notion of an unchanging transcendent reality (in other words, a shadow form of the Abrahamic God). If this is how you want to approach life, you should be aware of your own implicit ideology while doing so. Claims of 'rationality' are simply dishonest (note, I'm not saying they're wrong, just dishonest).
If we're being honest with ourselves, we all have an ideology, a way of explaining the world, and if we're honest with others we will not claim that we're being 'rational' without first explaining our ideology.
Mathematics says you cannot (the incompleteness theorems), so there will always be a fundamental truth you will need to subscribe to. This indicates that those claiming 'rationality' almost certainly have a belief that is irrational even according to themselves (if they are honest enough to admit it).
Here is an example. Suppose we are arguing about the need for a certain tax. The point of contention is whether the tax will majnly benefit the rich or the poor. You start out with an argument: even if the tax benefits those not in poverty, the effects will trickle down. Despite your opinions on trickle down economics, the argument was unsound at the very first words. 'Even if' is a form of argument via excluded middle. It presupposes that either tbe tax will help those in poverty or it will not. The law of excluded middle forms unsound logical systems. There are ways around it but i guarantee you you will not see this in 'rational' discourse
In the context of these everyday absurdities and the fact most logical systems are -- by necessity -- incomplete, its almost inavariably more interesting to talk about the unproven statements (the ideology) than the system of logic surrounding it. In other words, the ideology is ultimately what matters, even to rational thinkers.
Philosophy underpins ideology to a large extent.