Rationalism Quotes

“To confess your fallibility and then do nothing about it is not humble; it is boasting of your modesty.”
― Eliezer Yudkowsky

“Often the mass emotions are those which seem the noblest, best and most beautiful. And yet, inside a year, five years, a decade, five decades, people will be asking, "How could you have believed that?" because events will have taken place that will have banished the said mass emotions to the dustbin of history.”
― Doris Lessing, Prisons We Choose to Live Inside

“The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist and imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms

“A true rationalist ought to be effective in the real world.”
― Eliezer Yudkowsky

“The secret of contentment is never to allow yourself to want anything which reason tells you you haven't a chance of getting.”
― P.D. James

“Two ideas are opposed — not concepts or abstractions, but Ideas which were in the blood of men before they were formulated by the minds of men. The Resurgence of Authority stands opposed to the Rule of Money; Order to Social Chaos, Hierarchy to Equality, socio-economico-political Stability to constant Flux; glad assumption of Duties to whining for Rights; Socialism to Capitalism, ethically, economically, politically; the Rebirth of Religion to Materialism; Fertility to Sterility; the spirit of Heroism to the spirit of Trade; the principle of Responsibility to Parliamentarism; the idea of Polarity of Man and Woman to Feminism; the idea of the individual task to the ideal of ‘happiness’; Discipline to Propaganda-compulsion; the higher unities of family, society, State to social atomism; Marriage to the Communistic ideal of free love; economic self-sufficiency to senseless trade as an end in itself; the inner imperative to Rationalism.”
― Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium: Philosophy of History & Politics

“Doing worse with more knowledge means you are doing something very wrong.”
― Eliezer Yudkowsky

“Good excuses rarely collect dust. We use them, and use them, and use them.”
― Andy Stanley, Enemies of the Heart: Breaking Free from the Four Emotions That Control You

“Education levels are highly and negatively correlated to religious belief. In other words, ignorance is bliss.”
― Cesar Nascimento

“So far from a political ideology being the quasi-divine parent of political activity, it turns out to be its earthly stepchild. Instead of an independently premeditated scheme of ends to be pursued, it is a system of ideas abstracted from the manner in which people have been accustomed to go about the business of attending to the arrangements of their societies. The pedigree of every political ideology shows it to be the creature, not of premeditation in advance of political activity, but of meditation upon a manner of politics. In short, political activity comes first and a political ideology follows after; and the understanding of politics we are investigating has the disadvantage of being, in the strict sense, preposterous.
Let us consider the matter first in relation to scientific hypothesis, which I have taken to play a role in scientific activity in some respects similar to that of an ideology in politics. If a scientific hypothesis were a self-generated bright idea which owed nothing to scientific activity, then empiricism governed by hypothesis could be considered to compose a self-contained manner of activity; but this certainly is not its character. The truth is that only a man who is already a scientist can formulate a scientific hypothesis; that is, an hypothesis is not an independent invention capable of guiding scientific inquiry, but a dependent supposition which arises as an abstraction from within already existing scientific activity. Moreover, even when the specific hypothesis has in this manner been formulated, it is inoperative as a guide to research without constant reference to the traditions of scientific inquiry from which it was abstracted. The concrete situation does not appear until the specific hypothesis, which is the occasion of empiricism being set to work, is recognized as itself the creature of owing how to conduct a scientific inquiry.
Or consider the example of cookery. It might be supposed that an ignorant man, some edible materials, and a cookery book compose together the necessities of a self-moved (or concrete) activity called cooking. But nothing is further from the truth. The cookery book is not an independently generated beginning from which cooking can spring; it is nothing more than an abstract of somebody's knowledge of how to cook: it is the stepchild, not the parent of the activity. The book, in its tum, may help to set a man on to dressing a dinner, but if it were his sole guide he could never, in fact, begin: the book speaks only to those who know already the kind of thing to expect from it and consequently bow to interpret it.
Now, just as a cookery book presupposes somebody who knows how to cook, and its use presupposes somebody who already knows how to use it, and just as a scientific hypothesis springs from a knowledge of how to conduct a scientific investigation and separated from that knowledge is powerless to set empiricism profitably to work, so a political ideology must be understood, not as an independently premeditated beginning for political activity, but as knowledge (abstract and generalized) of a concrete manner of attending to the arrangements of a society. The catechism which sets out the purposes to be pursued merely abridges a concrete manner of behaviour in which those purposes are already hidden. It does not exist in advance of political activity, and by itself it is always an insufficient guide. Political enterprises, the ends to be pursued, the arrangements to be established (all the normal ingredients of a political ideology), cannot be premeditated in advance of a manner of attending to the arrangements of a society; what we do, and moreover what we want to do, is the creature of how we are accustomed to conduct our affairs. Indeed, it often reflects no more than a dis­covered ability to do something which is then translated into an authority to do it.”
― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and other essays

“Church leaders raised on rationalism lead ministries where the supernatural, the Vertical, is suppressed and where God Himself is at best an observer and certainly seldom, if ever, and obvious participant in church.”
― James MacDonald, Vertical Church: What Every Heart Longs for. What Every Church Can Be.

“The modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that they are dogmas. It may be said even that the modern world, as a corporate body, holds certain dogmas so strongly that it does not know that they are dogmas. It may be thought 'dogmatic,' for instance, in some circles accounted progressive, to assume the perfection or improvement of man in another world. But it is not thought "dogmatic" to assume the perfection or improvement of man in this world; though that idea of progress is quite as unproved as the idea of immortality, and from a rationalistic point of view quite as improbable. Progress happens to be one of our dogmas, and a dogma means a thing which is not thought dogmatic.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

“Notwithstanding the fact that infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the church with tearing down without building again. The church should by this time know that it is utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions. The history of religious persecution fully establishes the fact that the mind necessarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for the new. The moment we comprehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are of necessity cast aside.

A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease; of the curative properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air and light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be restored. These remarks ware so full of good sense, and discovered so much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, 'Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They are my only support, and without them I should be miserable indeed!' 'I am not going,' said the surgeon, 'to take away your crutches. I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the crutches away yourself.'

For the vagaries of the clouds the infidels propose to substitute the realities of earth; for superstition, the splendid demonstrations and achievements of science; and for theological tyranny, the chainless liberty of thought.”
― Robert G. Ingersoll

“Ο Μπρόιερ προσπάθησε να αποτινάξει το θάνατο απ' το μυαλό του. Μουρμούρισε το αγαπημένο του ξόρκι, τη φράση του Λουκρητίου: «Όπου είναι ο θάνατος, εγώ δεν είμαι. Όπου είμαι εγώ, ο θάνατος δεν είναι. Γιατί ν' ανησυχώ;» Αλλ' αυτό δεν βοήθησε.
Τίναξε το κεφάλι του, προσπαθώντας να διώξει αυτές τις μακάβριες σκέψεις. Από που του είχαν έρθει; Απ' την κουβέντα για το θάνατο που έκανε με τον Νίτσε; Όχι, μάλλον δεν του τις έβαλε ο Νίτσε στο μυαλό, απλώς τις απελευθέρωσε. Πάντα ήταν εκεί. Όλες τις είχε ξανασκεφτεί. Σε ποια περιοχή του μυαλού του όμως κατοικούσαν, όταν δεν τις σκεφτόταν; Ο Φρόυντ είχε δίκιο: πρέπει να υπάρχει μια δεξαμενή σύνθετων σκέψεων στον εγκέφαλο, πέρα απ' τη συνείδηση, αλλά σε ετοιμότητα, έτοιμες οποιαδήποτε στιγμή να κληθούν να παρελάσουν στη σκηνή της συνειδητότητας.
Και σ' αυτή τη μη συνειδητή δεξαμενή, δεν θα υπάρχουν μόνο σκέψεις, αλλά και συναισθήματα! Πριν λίγες μέρες, μέσ' απ' το αμάξι του, ο Μπρόιερ κοίταξε το διπλανό αμάξι. Τα δυό του άλογα τριπόδιζαν τραβώντας πίσω τους την καρότσα, που μέσα της κάθονταν δυο επιβάτες, ένα σκυθρωπό ηλικιωμένο ζευγάρι. Όμως δεν υπήρχε αμαξάς. Ένα αμάξι φάντασμα! Ο τρόμος τον τύφλωσε, κι είχε μια στιγμιαία εφίδρωση: τα ρούχα του μέσα σε δευτερόλεπτα έγιναν μούσκεμα. Κι έπειτα φάνηκε ο οδηγός του αμαξιού: είχε απλώς σκύψει για να δέσει την μπότα του.
Στην αρχή ο Μπρόιερ είχε γελάσει με την ανόητη αντίδρασή του. Αλλά όσο περισσότερο τη σκεφτόταν, τόσο συνειδητοποιούσε ότι, όσο ορθολογιστής κι ελεύθερος διανοητής κι αν ήταν, στο μυαλό του όμως κρύβονταν φωλιές υπερφυσικού τρόμου. Κι όχι πολύ βαθιά: «εφημέρευαν», βρίσκονταν δευτερόλεπτα μακριά απ' την επιφάνεια. Α, να υπήρχε μια λαβίδα να ξεριζώσει αυτές τις φωλιές, σαν τις αμυγδαλές!”
― Irvin D. Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept

“In the history of philosophy, the term “rationalism” has two distinct meanings. In one sense, it signifies an unbreached commitment to reasoned thought in contrast to any irrationalist rejection of the mind. In this sense, Aristotle and Ayn Rand are preeminent rationalists, opposed to any form of unreason, including faith. In a narrower sense, however, rationalism contrasts with empiricism as regards the false dichotomy between commitment to so-called “pure” reason (i.e., reason detached from perceptual reality) and an exclusive reliance on sense experience (i.e., observation without inference therefrom). Rationalism, in this sense, is a commitment to reason construed as logical deduction from non-observational starting points, and a distrust of sense experience (e.g., the method of Descartes). Empiricism, according to this mistaken dichotomy, is a belief that sense experience provides factual knowledge, but any inference beyond observation is a mere manipulation of words or verbal symbols (e.g., the approach of Hume). Both Aristotle and Ayn Rand reject such a false dichotomy between reason and sense experience; neither are rationalists in this narrow sense.

Theology is the purest expression of rationalism in the sense of proceeding by logical deduction from premises ungrounded in observable fact—deduction without reference to reality. The so-called “thinking” involved here is purely formal, observationally baseless, devoid of facts, cut off from reality. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was history’s foremost expert regarding the field of “angelology.” No one could match his “knowledge” of angels, and he devoted far more of his massive Summa Theologica to them than to physics.”
― Andrew Bernstein

“You can either control yourself by simple two lines of bitter truth ,
OR
by confusing yourself in long stories to comfort with a lie”
― er.teji

“Of course, I rationalize the fear. I realize it’s not real, that my house isn’t burning down, that the deer aren’t going to kill me.”
― Shannon Celebi

“Careful. When you dabble too much with reason life becomes nothing but a process of dying.”
― Lucas Mascotto-Carbone

“[Obituary of atheist philosopher Richard Robinson]

An Atheist's Values is one of the best short accounts of liberalism (a term Robinson accepted) and humanism (a term he ignored) produced during the present century, all the more powerful for its lucidity and moderation, its wit and wisdom. It may now seem old-fashioned, but during those confused alarms of struggle and fight between the ignorant armies of left and right, thousands of readers must have taken inspiration from Richard Robinson's rational defence of rationalism.

It is a pity that it is now out of print, when there is still so much nonsense and so little sense in the world.”
― Nicolas Walter

“The author compares rationalism and much of organized religion do a dictator who paves over natural springs in order to dispense water in a more organized fashion. The pushback of the world hungry for wonder may be compared to the break out of those springs from their constraints. Not everything they produce is healthy, but the overreaction of eliminating them is worse.”
― N.T. Wright, Simply Christian

“Alas, I have studied philosophy, / the law as well as medicine, / and to my sorrow, theology; / studied them well with ardent zeal, / yet here I am, a wretched fool, / no wiser than I was before.”
― ghadirian

“Rationality and common sense never goes out of fashion.”
― Amit Kalantri