Genesis of a Radical Idea

An introductory essay to my formal system of metaphilosophy: synthetic rationalism.

What is the meaning of the term "synthetic rationalism?" It might evoke the image of an unnatural chemistry concoction composed of Marxian dialectics mixed with Cartesian scepticism, but such a portrait risks committing itself to oversimplification. Fundamentally, the “synthetic” dimension draws from the process ontology of becoming, characteristic of much Hegelian and later Marxist thought. Whilst the “rationalist” side affirms the primacy of reasoned inquiry into the intelligibility of reality. At its core, this meta-system proposes a synthesis of metaphysical Platonic realism and ethical Kantian constructivism—a synthetic ontological axiology. This framework is made possible through a broader coherent fallibilist epistemology, whilst being guided by reflexive methods of social critique. In a similar manner to how solving part of a crossword puzzle opens the rest of it to cross examination, ideas in this system of thought are judged by their intersectional relations with other ideas. In essence: to be real is to get in tune with the rhythmic flow between contradiction and negation.

Now, you may be asking—why does it matter? Does synthetic rationalism offer any pragmatic value to human beings? To that, I would offer a qualified yes.

Each of us is entangled in a dense ideological labyrinth, shaped by the chaotic currents of history. We all carry conceptual baggage, most of which operates beneath the surface of conscious awareness. Synthetic rationalism seeks to offer a way through this maze—not by prescribing rigid dogma or succumbing to corrosive scepticism, but by charting a path between the two. It aspires to bring together the strengths of both contemporary continental and analytic traditions into am exciting new paradigm. One where paradox is not a dead end, but a generative force—driving innovation forward rather than backwards. In this way, synthetic rationalism becomes more than an abstract theory: it is a philosophical orientation with the potential to help individuals and societies think more clearly, act more justly, and live more reflectively.

This philosophy seeks to distinguish itself from the more static and rigid ontologies, primarily due to their ignorance of historical conditioning on the human psyche. No event happens in isolation and no idea is an island. As a society, we exist interdependently and the structure of the present is always in part determined by the past. Thus, a synthetic rationalist strives to remain critical of the status quo, yet forward thinking in their philosophical approach. The goal is to live in our familiar concrete jungle but revitalised with an insightful perspective that corresponds to potential future dynamics. Regardless, the most prominent pitfall for any such post-modern outlook is the looming threat of relativistic nihilism. The contingency of historical facts and the political pseudo-reality that recreates them does not necessarily imply that objective absolutes do not exist. For the synthetic rationalist, it is through the nexus of contradictory belief systems that one sifts through the dirt, to ideally find gold. And nothing shines brighter in the sunlight than a systematised synthetic line of reasoning.

Now any philosopher worth their salt recognises that there are drawbacks to any serious philosophical outlook. The best amongst philosophers will undermine their own theories in their works in the hopes that these contradictions can be resolved internally. So what are some common sense objections to synthetic rationalism? One objection is that it is an extremely ambitious project stretching across numerous branches of philosophy. This could be seen as a major vice or its virtue, depending on one's personal pragmatic evaluation. Its objective weakness though lies in the potential for overextension and a loss of epistemic humility. But since the goal of synthetic rationalism is to globally synthesise contradictions, ambition must therefore be inherent to its very nature, thus unavoidable.

The benefits in opposition to this theoretical hindrance consist primarily in avoiding simplistic scientific reductionism. Reality is a rather complex phenomenon after all. Occam's razor is only a useful heuristic, not a scientific law. Another prominent issue is the practicality of the system as a whole. By nature of its numerous interlocking elements it could perhaps compound confusion rather than provide conceptual clarity. My response is that despite having positions in numerous different fields of philosophy, the overall consistency and coherence of the system allows for easy familiarisation and broad applicability. In light of this, its intrinsic nature as deeply rooted in the Frankfurt school of critical theory guarantees active political engagement. It's this impetus combined with its internal flexibility that allows the system to adapt to any particular ideologically fuelled scenario.

The beauty of the dialectical process lay in its sober recognition that what is now considered commonplace was not always so, and won't be forever. Let us evolve henceforth.

In conclusion, synthetic rationalism presents a bold and integrative approach to contemporary philosophy. By synthesising the strengths of both continental and analytic traditions—uniting metaphysical realism, ethical constructivism, with a non-foundationalist epistemology—it charts a path toward renewed coherence in philosophical discourse. While not a panacea, its promise lies in its capacity for open-ended synthesis, offering a model that could reshape both theoretical inquiry and socio-economic imagination into the immediate future and beyond. In an age shadowed by fragmentation, such a vision may serve as a guiding light for those shattered thoughts that long for unity.