Also, it's not as if rationality is "above the fray", so to speak. Differing relationships to rationality are at the core of major differences between schools of thought in both international relations and economics, for instance.
Objective theories for how to act (including morality), requires that all subjects that could possibly be covered by the theories are 100% in agreement with all axioms. Also, all theory on top of the axioms must be 100% stringent.
2) I think you take the argument the wrong way. Our ideologies tend to influence both what we perceive as rational as well as how important it is for us that something is rational (as opposed to socially acceptable, comfortable, self-serving or a number of other metrics we can use to measure the value of the "something")
3) Rationalism is a well documented ideology (see my other post).
The number of things that can be said universally objectively is so vanishingly small that it's not even worth considering them for the most part.
> Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology?
No. All people will label what they perceive as rational as desirable. The issue is that 'what we perceive as rational' is almost necessarily based in our underlying ideology.
> In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article?
What are you claiming is biologically hard-wired? First-order predicate logic? Propositional logic? If it's hard-wired, why are there college classes dealing with introducing the topic?
Moreover, the existence of languages that are unable to express first-order predicate logic indicate that it is not hard-coded.
Finally, given the variety of human language, it does not seem clear that you can make these claims of 'biological hard-wiring' without justification.
> Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)?
Can you please explain what system you use to reason rationally? Can it add two numbers together? If so, it has an ideology behind it (see the incompleteness theorems), as there are statements in your logic that it can never prove.
If your system is incapable of basic arithmetic, then I question the value it has in everyday problems.
> Something else entirely?
The constant claim I see on HN, reddit, and social media in the 21st century of people claiming to act 'rationally', via movements such as lesswrong, rationalwiki, etc, is that such motivations are not ideological. However, it is clear that they are ideological because they often elevate what amounts to first-order logic plus the scientific method as means of discovering truth. First order logic with the law of excluded middle is unsound, and the scientific method as a means of establishing truth is based in the notion of an unchanging transcendent reality (in other words, a shadow form of the Abrahamic God). If this is how you want to approach life, you should be aware of your own implicit ideology while doing so. Claims of 'rationality' are simply dishonest (note, I'm not saying they're wrong, just dishonest).
If we're being honest with ourselves, we all have an ideology, a way of explaining the world, and if we're honest with others we will not claim that we're being 'rational' without first explaining our ideology.
1) Objectivity is a kind of ideology? This is objectively false ;)
2) Assigning desirability to that which we perceive as rational is a kind of ideology? In this case, can something so universal that it's surely biologically hard-coded be considered an 'ideology', esp in the context of the article?
3) Choosing to reason rationally instead of ideologically is an ideological choice (or perhaps even a choice motivated by the kind of ideological reasoning discussed in the article)?
4) Something else entirely?