This paper examines the concept of anti-rationalism versus rationalism. It specifically critiques the views of Plato, Descartes, Hume and Nietzsche. It discusses their views and the deductions they make according to their philosophies, as well as the restrictions that each of the philosophic systems place on their followers.
From the Paper:
"Reason, despite both sides of the rationalist/anti-rationalist argument, has its boundaries. Being a philosopher, I am very inclined to the pursuit of the acculturation of knowledge and the way that it helps me view and guide myself through life. Reason, however, seems to be a bit displaced at some points in defining philosophic systems of ontology. It seems to me that reason can be used to decipher the pieces of the puzzle--to give an outline of the painting of life. Many scholars have had visions and other non-rational occurrences that defined the way they thought about life. Reason does not play a role here. Reason has a hard enough time dealing with the complex idioms as to why people do the things they do, much less figure out the cosmological vibrations of religions, sexualities, and spiritualities. Despite the onset of reason, there is still feeling, emotion, and connection that cannot be rationally explained to someone who has not felt it before."
Sample of Sources Used:
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Vol. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.
Hume, David. "Hume: Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." August 1993. P.F. Collier & Son. 2 November 2008 <http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#2>.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. "Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols (excerpt)." Praxeology. 6 December 2008 <http://www.praxeology.net/twilight.htm>.
Anti-rationalism versus Rationalism (2012, January 15). Retrieved February 14, 2012, from http://www.academon.com/Comparison-Essay-Anti-rationalism-versus-Rationalism/114150