Talk:Rationality

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Ethics High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Ethics

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

moved the 2nd paragraph of the lead-section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've moved the 2nd paragraph of the lead-section to the section "Disputes about the concept of rationality". It asserts that rationality is relative to a "model" and that there is no independent or absolute fact as to whether a state or a person is rational. This may be a defensible philosophical position but it is not universally accepted. A counterexample would be theories that define rationality as responsiveness to experience. According to some such theories: either you are responsive to a given reason or your aren't; a reason is a reason no matter what "model" is used. This is why the lead section is not the best place for it. Apart from that, this paragraph is in need of sources.Phlsph7 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic