Talk:Rationalism/Archive 1

message: As far as I know, the full quotation from Descartes is: dubito, cogito, ergo sum: I doubt, I think, therefore I am. Although I am not a rationalist myself I believe this should be mentioned as a counterweight for the cool and self-assured reputation (which needs not to be wholly incorrect) of rationalists.
Sjoerd de Vries
:This has been done, Sjoerd, though not because of their "cool" nature, however much of a Fonz the Rationalists may have been! --Knucmo2 21:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in most of the world this is the more common meaning of the word.
MWAK--217.123.73.210 13:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comment 

message: JA: Under the rubric, "Do not ramify subtext beyond necessity", I am moving one editorical comment to the talk page, so that it can be archived for all posteriority.  Jon Awbrey 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ockham's Eraser

message: JA: The way I read them, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza are not just rational thinkers but speculative thinkers, and we need to exercise caution to avoid a type of misunderstanding that often arises in presenting the work of speculative thinkers.  A speculative reasoner can present one sort of speculative system on a Monday morning, a very different system on a Tuesday afternoon, and an utterly fantastic system on a Sunday evening.  But they can be, and in the case of these three, certainly were, just as acquainted with ordinary reality as anybody has to be in order to get through life, and they do not of necessity contradict themsleves anymore than Walt Whitman did. In the case of Leibniz especially, his speculations about what God knows and when he knows it have to be keep in a separate hamper from his knowledge of what we "fallible and mortal finite information critters" (FAMFIC's) know and how we come to know it.  Jon Awbrey 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are historically classed as rationalists as opposed to empiricists.  They may be speculative but then so were the idealists (even more so perhaps).  Pretty much every philosopher, amateur and professional is in consensus about this.  Hence on my course when I was taught about the rationalists, Spinoza, Leibniz et. al were mentioned.  What are you on about when you talk about FAMFIC's?  --Knucmo2 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On speculation

message: As already mentioned, the less prominent rationalists have no mention in the article as of yet.  How are we to go about mentioning their rationalist "credentials" without turning it into a full summary of their works.  Somehow, the distinctly "rationalist" parts have to be emphasised. Is Gassendi a rationalist by the way? --Knucmo2 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the category "Rationalists" is artificial and a bit vague in the first place, it's not easy to say definitively who ought to be placed in it.  On the whole, I'd say that Gassendi shares enough with the Rationalists to be included (though his views on, for example, the possibility of deriving scientific knowledge through the senses changed through his life, and his scepticism and Epicureanism might be taken to set him apart from the Rationalists). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I agree that the distinction is a little artificial.  How about Malebranche?  I'm not overly familiar with his works as I am with Gassendi's.  Two good books that collaborators on this article might want to read are Cottingham, J. (Major Descartes scholar) Rationalism and Aune, B. Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An Introduction, as they are valuable secondary resources we'll be able to use for the article and they're notable for their clarity in drawing out similarities and differences between the philosophers.  --Knucmo2 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malebranche et al.

message: I vote no.  As a user with a PhD in Philosophy, I think that (a) the current Continental Rationalism article provides a sober, satisfactory description of some of the modern rationalist philosophers, but (b) the current Rationalism article veers into what many academic philosophers think of as fringe material involving free thinking and anti-religious humanism.  (a) Philosophical rationalism is generally seen as following a distinctly separate path from empiricism, but (b) humanistic "rationalism" is often seen as closely allied with contemporary scientific empiricism.  Bottom Line:  I don't think that the prospects are good for merging these 2 articles.  I'd suggest instead that the current Rationalism article be left as is and that Continental Rationalism be expanded into something like Rationalism in Academic Philosophy, so that the thought of classical and medieval philosophical rationalists like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas can be included, as well as 20th century philosophical rationalists like Brand Blanshard or Henry Veatch. --WikiPedant 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying precisely what I have been trying to say. I propose not that they be merged, but that rationalism should either redirect here or continental rationalism should be moved there. The content currently found at rationalism could be moved to something like rationalist movement. As is, it gives many people the wrong impression of what rationalism means in philosophy. Srnec 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Srnec, now I see what you have in mind.  Your suggestion works for me.  It keeps the articles separate and rightly gives the name Rationalism to the academic philosophical stream.  Sorry for misunderstanding your intent. --WikiPedant 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because nobody else but you has responded to dispute tags and move requests, I have unilaterally moved rationalism to rationalist movement and made the former a redirect here. There is a disambiguation page at rationalism (disambiguation). I still think this page ought to be moved to rationalism and continental rationalism ought to redirect there. Srnec 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the correct next step is to move this page to Rationalism and redirect Continental Rationalism there. --WikiPedant 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move: Should Continental Rationalism be merged with the Rationalism article?

message: I've removed the redirect from rationalism to here, and placed the current content from this article in that one.  Judging by the discussion above, this article may be merged anyway, and I have no judgment or strong opinion about such a move.  But a redirect from "rationalism" to "continental rationalism" makes little sense.  If there's any strong disagreement about that, by all means revert. ... Kenosis 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, take a look at meta:Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. It's not just a cut-and-paste. Banno 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed redirect and placed existing content in [[rationalism]]

message: : Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support per reasons given above.  Jon Awbrey 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There are two distinct forms of rationalism; the first is a philosophical school deriving from Descartes, opposed to empiricism, and dealt with in the present article. The other relates to humanist ideas of the 19th century, and is closely allied with secularism and scepticism, and is dealt with at Rationalist movement. (Incidentally, that page needs work). 
My preference is to have the present article moved to rationalism, and disambiguation links to the other pages; this reflects the more common usage.
Septentrionalis, would this be an acceptable compromise? Kenosis, I'm afraid I disagree with your reason given above. i think that the two forms of rationalism are sufficiently distinct that it would be misleading to include mention of Descartes and co. in the Rationalist movement article. I hope you will agree to not including it. 
Failing that, perhaps Jon, Wikipedant, and Srnec would accept moving the disambiguation page to rationalism and leaving this material here. Although not my preferred option, I would be willing to accept this. 
Let's work towards a compromise, before the talk page becomes a quagmire. Banno 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing quagmirish yet, just friendly discussion on a philosophical definition. Your proposal is my proposal. Srnec 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Both points are true. But the title of the present article is continental rationalism, not just rationalism; that is, the subject of the present article should be the philosophy of Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza.  Some might think recent edits preempt the results of the discussion by unilaterally merging rationalism with continental rationalism. Might I suggest that the article not be further edited until a consensus is reached? Banno 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I have documented what rationalism normally means in philosophy." Yes, you have; but in an article entitled, specifically, continental rationalism. If your edits are kept, then there is no choice but to move the article to rationalism. Does anyone object to doing this? Banno 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If that does not strike you as an odd task to set yourself, prior to the movement of this article to rationalism, then I am at a loss. Consider the point moot.Banno 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise, continental rationalism and the rationalist movement