urpriest:

nostalgebraist:

[snip]

I feel like you could capture this entire notion by saying you have an analytic temperament, rather than a positivist one, though.

I guess I find “analytic” too broad – it refers to a whole tradition with many aspects, not all of which I like, and some of which I strongly dislike.  “Positivist,” even if it’s not quite technically right, gives a much sharper idea of what I am trying to get at.

It’s like: you know how there are people who find Ayn Rand really inspiring and compelling somehow, despite realizing that, if taken literally, a lot of what she says is pretty awful?  And these people might say things like “I sort of have an objectivist temperament, even though I agree with all of the usual criticisms of objectivism”?  One response to this might be to ask them precisely what they mean, and then when they try to articulate it, say “well it sounds like you’re a conservative” or “it sounds like you’re a libertarian” or something.  But those are different statements.  (One is about a broad tradition; the other is about a very specific tradition, although with the caveat that one only feels a broad, vague sort of affinity for it.)

The point of putting the word “temperament” in there is that you can get across ideas like “a part of me deeply feels that Ayn Rand was onto something even though I agree with the usual objections.”  That isn’t the same as, say, “I’m a libertarian”; the only reason to say the latter and not the former, if you are one of these people, is to avoid the response “but objectivism is ridiculous!”  Which, again, is the point of the word “temperament.”  If there is no way to shield words like “objectivist” or “positivist” with enough distancing qualifiers to avoid getting tangled up in these conversations, then so be it, but I’d consider that a loss – there is then a definite fact that I am unable to communicate.

(via urpriest)