By being accurate to what the words actually mean in English.
Words can have different meanings in English.
"Rationalist" could refer to the common understanding of "rational" found in the dictionary or it could refer to the the philosophical tradition, right?
(Two different things). I infer you are appealing to a definition such as: "
a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response."
Would that be right?
Again, that didn't actually answer the dilemma I posed, and even your own response about tube amps highlighted the dilemma.
Like I said, both terms "non-rational" and "subjectivist" can suffer the same problem that people can be in a continuum between the extremes, and your own post about tube amps suggested this problem for "rationalists" too.
Further, as I said, I don't think it gets at the distinctions we find among those who eschew measurements and controlled tests for subjective evaluation. Some of them are basing their truth claims on "emotional reactions" they feel when evaluating gear. But others are, by their lights, using reason: reasoning that their ears/brain are more complex and sensitive instruments with which to detect differences than instruments.
They may be mistaken, but to be mistaken doesn't automatically equate to being "non-rational" which implies not appealing to reason.
But "subjectivist" captures both those approaches and anything in between them: as I said, it's an epistemic stance that our subjective experience/apparatus is the gold standard by which to vet sonic differences in audio. That accounts for both the approaches above, more specifically and accurately I think, than the more broad "non-rationalist."
My irrational side loves tube amps. When I compared mine to a more standard amp, ears-only, the sonic differences (up to clipping) were evanescent at best. So I use it (well, until we moved to Phoenix!) for irrational reasons, like enjoying the fun of old technologies.
That's one reason I have a problem with using the term "rational" in general, and your use of it here specifically.
There's nothing irrational or non-rational about your love of tube amps. No more than someone's love of, say, a mechanical watch.
What is irrational about enjoying old technology? You appreciate something about old technology. It brings you joy to use. You are under no illusions or false beliefs about it. That's entirely rational.
The Manichean limitation is yours (and many others', as well), not a general one.
Ok, that strongly suggests you aren't trying to understand what I'm arguing. You seem to pretend I haven't given any nuance.
Most of the things we categorize come with caveats and pragmatic justifications, not "Manichean" absolutism. Unless you are also going
to accuse your local hardware store, or biologist, of manichaeism?
If you are going to just ignore all the non-Manichean caveats I've given for the categories "subjectivist" and "objectivist"...can you explain to me why
your division between "
rationalist" and "
non-rationalist" isn't your own Manichean limitation?
