  : Briefly for 's sake! *You say, Philosophy is Rational ..... :And you say, Ludvikus says Philosophy is not Rational. I didn't say this (you must have lost yourself in my verbal forest). There's a THIRD alternative: Your reliance on this single term, Rational, as explaining philosophy is misplaced. That should have had you paraphrase me as saying: Ludvikus says neither (one, or its negation). *But I see you've made some progress in your reading over the week-end: :You've moved your philosophical Consciousness from the Rationalists, and the Age of Reason, right up to Kant. You are now in his Critique of Pure Reason. So you're now marketing your Personal View - as if Kant did not exist - that philosophy is critical enquiry. You are (though you're not aware of it obviously) looking at all of what Philosophy is - from a Critical point of views. That's still the 18th century - irrespective of your cited readings above,which was of a more recent vintage (your philosophical thinking is excellent evidence of the role of the Irrational  - don't take offense defensively, which you will most likely anway). *Regarding Rick's reference to European Post Modernism you seem totally unaware of its existence. Is that because it's in the 20th century, and your still stuck in the 18th? **Am I brief enough for you? Or do not understand me because of my brevity?  