Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

I have noticed that there is a degree of anti-rationalism in the collective discourse, where people identify rationalism as a major problem in the world. This is quite understandable due to the injustices perpetrated throughout history in the name of rationalism, but the entire situation is based on a misconception, which I will endeavour to clarify here.

The cause of the many problems that are blamed on rationalism is actually “narrow context rationalism”, which is really a form of pseudo-rationalism because when it is applied in the wider context it is entirely irrational. But pseudo-rationalists often label rationalists as pseudo-rationalist so the terms are quite confused in the collective discourse. But an analysis of their contexts can distinguish them from each other...

If one formulates one's facts and axioms within a narrow context, it doesn't matter how valid the logic is which produces the successive propositions and conclusions, these are still only valid within that narrow context. But people then apply those propositions and conclusions within the real-world context where the narrowly derived facts and axioms are false, hence the propositions and conclusions are false. This has happened throughout history in various forms and has given rise to various confusions, delusions and atrocities.

A very simple analogy is if you are standing on a smooth flat piece of ground and you look around your feet and then decide that the earth is smooth and flat. But if you then walked around with that assumption guiding your actions you will trip over on every protrusion and you will fall into every ditch.

But when the axioms are defined within the wider context and the logic is sound, then rationalism is a clear and systematic approach that leads to accurate knowledge and genuine wisdom.

Hence: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."*

In order for rationalism to be grounded in the wider context we need a clear and accurate understanding of the wider context. We also need to be deeply sceptical, which means open-minded enquiry that is free from all preconceptions because our preconceptions are based on prior knowledge, which is a narrow context compared to the field of what can be known. Hence, going into an enquiry with a mind loaded with rational preconceptions is a form of pseudo-rationalism.

For example, empiricism is pseudo-rational because it is based upon the false naive realist, positivist assumption that the objects of sense experience are real external objects and that these are the only valid basis upon which to derive our axioms. Hence all empiricist reasoning occurs within the narrow confines of naïve realism and positivism. But the objects of sense perception are phenomena within the mind, hence empiricism is a form of phenomenology, which is “the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.”* But not realising this, empiricists believe that they are acquiring objective knowledge of the world as it actually is, and they intrude into matters of ontology, which “studies being or existence and its basic categories and relationships, to determine what entities and what types of entities exist. Ontology thus has strong implications for conceptions of reality.”* Thus when empirical science declares that the physical universe is 'real' rather than just apparent to the senses, it has become pseudo-rational and is should be called Scientism, which is a naïve realist, positivist, materialist pseudo-religion. See the articles Naïve Realism and Empiricism and Scientistic Heresy.

There are numerous other examples of pseudo-rationalist movements, from economic rationalism, biological rationalism, medical rationalism, individualistic rationalism, political rationalism and nearly all approaches that currently call themselves rational. The narrow context which is common to all of these is naïve realism. The only non-naïve realist forms of rationalism are the cutting edge of quantum physics, some forms of computational metaphysics, advaita vedanta, yoga and many other forms of rational mysticism. All non-naive realist rational approaches converge on the same conclusions about the nature of reality and our place within it, for example, see the article Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism.

A pseudo-rationalist is trapped within their narrow context and firmly believes that everything can be comprehended through that narrow context, hence when they encounter rationalism it seems bizarre, ridiculous, incomprehensible and totally irrational, but it is they who are unwittingly being irrational.

A genuine rationalist draws upon all sources of knowledge and wisdom, including intuition and inspiration, and they test them in an open-minded, rational manner. They are not bound purely to sense experiences like the empiricists and they don't succumb to naïve realism like most pseudo-rationalists. A rationalist can eventually come to understand everything that the mind can possibly entertain. Including the non-dual, non-material, non-sensory ongoing-process-of-the-real (spirit world) as well as the naïve realist, dualist, materialist, empiricist misconceptions that 'embodied' spirit beings form about their sensory experiences (human world).

Hence the atrocities throughout history are the product of pseudo-rationalism (“shallow draughts intoxicate the brain”) whilst through genuine rationalism (“ drinking largely sobers us again”) “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”*

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.