Talk:Rationalism/Archive 2

Continental Rationalism link repair

Now that the page has been moved, there is a job to be done when you have some spare time. There are quite a few links to continental rationalism that should now be redirected to this article.[1] Banno 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pages are talk pages and user pages, which probably don't need attention. I've been chipping away at the rest, and as time permits will continue to amuse myself with this task set. -WikiPedant 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Have you thought of using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? Banno 06:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, mission accomplished. One by one (with appropriate minor rewrites where required) I have fixed all the articles which formerly linked to "continental rationalism" so that they now link to "rationalism". I didn't bother with user pages and talk pages. I also noticed another slight problem -- the new "rationalism" article appears to have some articles linking to it which should now link to "rationalist movement" instead. I fixed a few of the more obvious of these too, but people who have been involved in this renaming exercise should probably keep an eye peeled for pages where a link to "rationalism" should be changed to "rationalist movement". -WikiPedant 05:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: FYI, it isn't really necessarly to change links except to fix double redirects, which is usually a lot less work. All you have to do is see what links to Rationalism, and then flatten the redirect tree to a bush, no political puns intended. Jon Awbrey 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikipedant, for fixing the links. Jon seems to have missed the point - again. Banno 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Social Darwinism

Why does this page link to social Darwinism? I'm removing the lnik, but feel free to tell me if there is a legitamate reason. --NeoNerd 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my pedantic intrusion, but I do not think that you will be troubled with a "legitamate" reason. However, I think we both should be concerned that the Version 1 Editorial Team has already reviewed this page.-- Infonomics November 14, 2007.

That was impolite, and in disaccord with the good faith principle of WP. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a semiprotect or something on this page. Too much vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.196.17 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is neoplatonism doing here?

Have I got anything wrong, but Neoplatonism is kind of a philosophy dealing mostly with gods and heavenly hierarchies. Does that have anything to do with Rationalism, which affirms the existense of unobservable truths and uses it to create reasoning models of the science kind? Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza as one of the rationalist

According to Stuart Hampshire, in his book Spinoza (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England 1951), argues that Spinoza should be among the most influential rationalist since he was an "heroic" methapisist in the days when modern physics was getting a lot of popularity, in order to answer the question of human existence only using decuctive methods.

I think that Spinoza's main book's name says it all. Ethica, ordine geometrico demostrata or Ethics demostred according the geometrical order. (if my translation from Spanish is not mistaken)

--Dribero (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)dribero[reply]

Uh, it's Latin, not Spanish. The title "Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata" translates to "Ethics demonstrated in geometrical order". 64.134.252.10 (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Spinoza not listed? He is there as a primary source but is not discussed like the others are...??? 10:55, 15 August 2009

neoplatonism?

what is this section on neoplatonism about? there is nothing on rationalism. if not changed i am going to remove it. --Dert45 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge to classical "rationalism"

There is a difference between recognizing and using reason and the historical movement of rationalism. If we are going call anyone who appeals to reason a rationalist then there is no other kind of philosopher; they all are rationaists. Rationalism means and always has meant a continuous run of philosophers starting in the 17th century who emphasized the role and function of reason as opposed to fixed views of the Bible or leaving the little matter of what to believe up to your spiritual superiors. I object totally to calling any ancient Greeks rationalists. Rationalism starts at earliest in the 17th century. I've never heard or read of rationalism being applied to the classical world or the medieval world either, and not even to the renaissance world. It seems to me such an application is the over-zealous views of one or more WP editors carried away by explaining everything to everyone without much experience of or checking the history of ideas. You just can't know everything, boys. Please take all reference to the classical world OUT of there. I would do it myself but I am involved with other articles of need just as great. Alternatively, prove what you say comes from anyone but you!Dave (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it classically started in the 12th Century under Averrois. This is what we currently classify as rational thought...JCW.

Criticisms

I notice the page has quotes from Gandhi and the Pope that challenge rationalism. However it seems to me that they are actually criticisms of a different position. They don't seem to be criticizing the idea that knowledge can be innate, but rather the idea that the world can be understood by scientific means. Or perhaps they are criticizing something more related to the rationalism in political philosophy that is described below. At any rate, it doesn't seem to be this particular epistemological position that they are criticizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.57.234 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The word "rationalism" is used with different meanings here. There are many serious critiques of epistemological rationalism that should be inlcuded in that section, but Gandhi's is certainly not one of them.201.21.68.17 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senses (five external plus internal)

"Taken to extremes the empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us through experience, either through the five external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and pleasure"

This seems to me an infelicitous, and old-fashioned way of talking about the senses. Firstly, it's not really clear how one can divide the senses up between internal and external in this way: it makes little sense to me that pain be considered as an inner sensation and touch (one of the traditional Aristotelian five) be considered as external. Secondly, it's is not very accurate anyway to think of there being five 'external' senses, there are not, touch and temperature are separate, etc. From the article on Sense

"There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to the number of senses because of differing definitions of what constitutes a sense. One definition states that an exteroceptive sense is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived.[1] The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, a classification attributed to Aristotle.[2] Humans are considered to have at least five additional senses that include: nociception (pain); equilibrioception (balance); proprioception and kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration); sense of time; thermoception (temperature differences); and possibly an additional weak magnetoception (direction)[3], and six more if interoceptive senses (see other internal senses below) are also considered."

Grcaldwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Spinoza/Einstein Vandalism

Theists are constantly trying to call Albert Einstein a "believer", as the article says in the Spinoza section. For Spinoza, God was a word he used to call 'Nature' or 'substance'. All of the natural world is made of one substance, God, or Nature. God is not anything personal, not a being, and not outside of the universe. Just as Spinoza did not believe in a personal god or any being inside or outside of the natural world, neither did Einstein. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Nothing is ever known to us beyond all doubt.
A thing that is known is only known beyond a reasonable doubt.

By momentarily 'suspending our disbelief' we can use our intuition
to get a 'feel' for how 'reasonable' an idea is. (this is an inductive process)

By itself intuition is subjective and unreliable.
Intuition + objectivity gives us the ability to know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Intuition is not empirical. It cannot be observed.
This is why rationalism is opposed to empiricism.
Just granpa (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates? Or Plato?

The section on Socrates makes all kinds of assertions of dubious credibility, considering that we have no primary sources. Indeed, it sounds like most of what is attributed to "Socrates" here was taken from Plato's dialogues, which have never been considered an accurate account of what Socrates actually said or thought. This is like quoting Hamlet in an article on Danish history. --96.32.176.174 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why isn't Plato - the arch-Rationalist - on this page? --91.125.72.137 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Socrates because it is not clear that Socrates belongs in an article on Rationalism. Socrates was not a rationalist -- at least not in any ordinary sense of the term. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are commonly identified with Rationalism; an encyclopedia article shouldn't put forth new views. It should tell readers how labels are ordinarily used, and Socrates is not ordinarily referred to as a "rationalist." Even if the label was created after they were all dead, it is still common to hear Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz referred to as "Rationalists." Indeed there are important similarities in their work -- most importantly, they apply methods and standards used in geometry to metaphysics in pursuit of certainty.

Socrates was an Ancient Greek philosopher, who may have held a view similar to Plato's theory of the Forms. He was definitely concerned with analyzing concepts, but not in the same way as the rationalists. If Plato's Socrates is any indication, he rejected the geometrical method as inappropriate to philosophy, preferring dialectics instead (For example, see: Republic, Book VI, 510c-511e).

Nothing in the section I deleted (which doesn't include a single citation) gives any reason to think that Socrates belongs in the Rationalist category. The stuff about the Greek worldview seems inappropriate for an article on Rationalism. I copy/pasted it below in case someone disagrees. If anyone really thinks it needs to be in this article, I ask you to please make your case here before returning it to the main article. -- Brijohn6882 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Begin, section removed from main article]

Socrates (ca 470–399B.C.E.)

Socrates firmly believed that before humans can understand the world, they first need to understand themselves; the only way to accomplish that is with rational thought. To understand what this means, one must first appreciate the Greek understanding of the world. Humans are composed of two parts: a body and a soul. The soul itself has two principal parts: an Irrational part, which is the emotions and desires; and a Rational part, which is our true self. In our everyday experience, the irrational soul is drawn into the physical body by its desires and merged with it, so that our perception of the world is limited to that delivered by the physical senses. The rational soul is beyond our awareness, but sometimes communicates via images, dreams, and other means.

The task of the philosopher is to refine and eventually extract the irrational soul from its bondage, hence the need for moral development, and then to connect with the rational soul in order to become a complete person, manifesting the higher spiritual essence of the person while in the physical body. True rationalism is therefore not simply an intellectual process, but a shift in perception and a shift in the qualitative nature of the person. The rational soul perceives the world in a spiritual manner – it sees the Platonic Forms – or the essence of what things are. To know the world in this way requires that one first know oneself as a soul, hence the requirement to 'know thyself', i.e. to know who you truly are.

Socrates did not publish or write any of his thoughts, but he was constantly in discussion with others. He would usually start by asking a rhetorical, seemingly answerable question, to which the other would give an answer. Socrates would then continue to ask questions until all conflicts were resolved, or until the other could do nothing else but admit to not knowing the answer (which was what most of his discussions ended with). Socrates did not claim to know the answers, but that did not impair his ability to critically and rationally approach problems. His goal was to show that, ultimately, our intellectual approach to the world is flawed, and we must transcend this to obtain true knowledge of what things are.

[End section removed from main article] -- Brijohn6882 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kant

"Immanuel Kant started as a traditional rationalist, having studied the rationalists Leibniz and Wolff, but after studying David Hume's works, which "awoke [him] from [his] dogmatic slumbers", he developed a distinctive and very influential rationalism of his own which attempted to synthesise the traditional rationalist and empiricist traditions."

That first part is simply false. The young (or "pre-Critical") Kant's attitude toward Leibniz and Wolff was derisive and mocking -- see Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Illustrated by Dreams of Metaphysics which was published fifteen years before the first Critique and attempted to show that the hallucinations of Swedenborg were no more ridiculous and fanciful than the metaphysical claims of Leibniz and Wolff. He regularly refers to Leibniz by name and calls his ideas "laughable" at least once. His feelings toward Leibniz and Wolff softened as he got older, and he used Leibniz as a reference point on many occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.78.78 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relationship between Kant and rationalism needs careful handling. Partly this is due to the problems with the label "rationalism" altogether. But the above comment (abut mocking Leibniz and so forth) must be taken with the fact that he used Baumgarten's "Metaphysics" as his textbook for most of his teaching, and that is largely based on the Leibniz-Wolff line. I think the above quote is quite right - Kant DID study and draw much from the rationalists. Heck - re-read Descartes' second meditation where he starts talking about all knowledge being a matter of judgement ("Yetdo I see any more than hats and coats which could conceal automatons? I judge that they are men. And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgement which is in my mind."). Sounds rather Kantian to me! These "empiricist" and "rationalist" labels are mostly confusing baggage.72.229.147.6 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua's general edit/clean up/expansion

Howdy folks,

I just wanted to let y'all know that I'm going to start working on this article. I plan to resolve the criticisms, clear up the language, and expand the article with primary focus on the history of rationalism and adding a section on the philosophy of rationalism.

Any ideas would be welcome.

~Joshua 05:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit complete

--Joshua (Talk) 08:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuafilmer (talk • contribs) [reply]

Should be submitted to GAN

I've reassesed this article as B class, but it could easily be a GA class article. I suggest it be submitted to WP:GAN. Best. 64.40.54.128 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could agree. In terms of citations, a lot of gnomish work is needed. (I've just now done a bit of ce, but ....) Also, we have the article assessed as start by another project. (I do see it is listed as a "Vital article". This WP feature is something new for me, so I'll look at it some more.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Locke

Have edited the citation to Locke because the original was exceedingly unclear and referred to a nonexistent section of the Essay. The citation I have replaced it with reads as follows in the 1952 Encyc. Brit. Great Books edition:

"No propositions can be innate, since no ideas are innate."

Taken in context this would appear to support the point which Locke is claimed to be making in the section on innate concepts. If someone is aware of a different work to which the original citation referred please fix this. Thanks.

206.244.103.16 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and references templates

I think the two templates at the beginning of this article are an unnecessary downgrading of a quite sound article. If you are in discordance with any part of the article that is unsupported you can challenge it, but I thing it would be better to remove the heading templates.--Auró (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference ten came from here actually, unless I'm mistaken: http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=interview_strawson Could someone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6025:2:1828:18C0:A4D7:6644 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Descartes

Should Rene Descartes be really named as a rationalist? As far as I know he supported the theory to first doubt everything. And that is normally not Rationalism, because Rationalism implies to work with correct facts and not to doubt them. The explanation to "first" doubt everything is also not enough to name it a rational method because the logical thinking already can separate in false and correct and does not need to doubt the correct facts. Therefor to first doubt everything would not be part of Rationalism. To give another example for it comes over the intention, the intention to doubt everything works with a false proportionality, when you already have the correct proportionality you don't need to doubt it, because that would be irrational. When you have 99 of 100 points of a correct information but place a focus on that 1 point ignoring the 99 previous points, than it is irrational because it results in disproportional weight factors. The one point is part of a mathematical probability that something "could" be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.5.11.190 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tel me about rationalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.211.2 (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two incongruous hard to justify sentences

Generally this article is coming on and useful, but there were two sentences that in my opinion stand out as being difficult to justify, and somewhat nonsensical.

The first is at the beginning of the Background section, which starts with the sentences: "It is difficult to identify a major figure in the history of rationalism, or even a major period of history in rational thought before the Enlightenment. One of the primary reasons for this is the fact that humans have the ability to know information they otherwise shouldn't know – primarily in the field of mathematics. Every philosopher has acknowledged this to some degree or another.". I would argue that the first (and third) sentence are very debatable - in fact the history section has many examples of rationalist figures from antiquity, and it's arguable if rationalism is framed in opposition to empiricism that many major currents of thought before the enlightenment were rationalist, and that the enlightenment brought in a wave of empiricist thought (Locke, Hume) rather than the other way around.

But the second sentence - "the fact that humans have the ability to know information they otherwise shouldn't know – primarily in the field of mathematics" - seems very confused to me. Why is the normative term "ought" used? What "information" "ought" humans to "know"? Why is mathematics different to this? I think these sentences are trying to get at the fact that (i) philosophy has historically been an "armchair" activity and (ii) there are lots of areas of knowledge (like maths) that at least intuitively seem to be accessible through an "analytic" approach, which we might equate with rationalism. I suspect that this is a hangover from some earlier content addressing a more colloquial definition of rationalism.

The second statement is in the Spinoza section - 'Goethe admitted that he "could not really understand what Spinoza was on about most of the time."' This is genuinely funny, because it seems rather doubtful that Goethe was commenting on Spinoza in colloquial 21st century English, which the quote implies. (Spinoza eh? What was that guy on about?!). It's quite possible that Goethe expressed equivalent sentiments, but the citation given is a broken link that only seemed to go to a book review anyway.

I am going to be bold and re-express the background sentences with something more intelligable, and trim down the Goethe material (and add a citation needed). 81.141.179.41 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral experiment

Most people in the U.S. have metaphysical background, but some youngsters are open to antimetaphysicality. These neo-atheists usually maintain some family learned superstitions. A way to expel them is to play the game: "Metaphysical belief in rationalism". Whenever you have an urge to make a metaphysical choice, you stop, Google, and either do what statistically and scientifically (you have to read scientific papers or abstracts if you are with friends and you have no time) is the best for your case, and when there are no data you don't act metaphysically but logically, when all choices are equally good but one is metaphysical, you avoid it (the correct statistically is to toss a die, but in statistics even the supposed metaphysical outcome emerges, and due to randomness, sometimes it happens very often, and that Jesus effect will disorient you, thus you avoid the metaphysical option, because people are emotional (limbic thinkers). You give an oath that you will always act logically and that oath will give you metaphysical strength. It works only if you want to do it, and you aren't stressed or negative. It works better if you believe that it's simply a game that might actually help, and not as something which makes you nervous; but you have to believe, not exactly in the absolute sense, but you have to believe that if you are positive you will feel simply better. The point isn't to play that oathed game permanently, but when you accept rationalism, you simply become a more relaxed version of you. It works if you do it with friends who do the same (if they laugh against you, it doesn't work [I don't know why, seriously...]) and have a good time, watch movies, party, walk etc., if you don't believe in it, if you ask too many questions, if you're closed to yourself and anxious it doesn't work, neither other things will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.221.161 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switch pictures

In my opinion, Spinoza's picture should be switched with Descartes because Descartes is widely regarded as the founder of modern rationalism and is more associated with it than any other philosopher. It feel strange to me that Spinoza is the one who you first see on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:3D5F:6D3C:85EE:E7E0 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist movement

The rationalism of the contemporary "rationalist movement" should be mentioned in either an additional section or distinguished from the philosophical concept of rationalism in the beginning of this article.

These rationalists are much more interested in topics like effective altruism and AI risk than the opinions of the philosophers that are described here. They are probably best represented by the Slate Star Codex and LessWrong communities.

The LessWrong Wiki summarizes some of their ideas: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationalist_movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rationalist movement" is a household term in certain national languages

I came here, after reading various articles at a certain website in Polish, specifically www.racjonalista.pl, hoping to get an internationally-based overview of the subject of rationalism as a PERSONAL philosophy. Unfortunately, this article deals with obscure philosophical research that is way up the ivory tower. For a person without ambitions to become a student of either American or European competing schools of theoretical philosophy, this article is completely irrelevant. The common sense understanding of the saying "I am a rationalist" is "I prefer rationality as a way to ascertain the truth of anything, as opposed to unquestioned or worse, fanatical faith or belief, as given by an outside organized authority." Unfortunately, this simple understanding seems to be lost, especially among professional philosophers. The result is that a (hypothetical) page about rationalism, in common sense meaning of the word, is nowhere to be found, not even relegated to "Disambiguation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morycm (talk • contribs) 07:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"French rationalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect French rationalism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § French rationalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Rational Association" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rational Association and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Rational Association until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalism: a Philosophy, a "Religion" of some sort, or a Way of Thinking?

I came across the page on rationalism because another page listed it as a "non-theistic" religion or philosophy. The problem with this is that rationalism can be paired with any religion and any philosophy. Rationalism is a way of thinking and (for lack of a better word) rationalizing ones beliefs. In other words, if you adhere to no relgion at all without ever questioning why, this isn't rationalism. The same goes for any religion or philosophy.

Rationalism is an philosophical theory and foundation of knowledge based on transcendental truths.

Article introduction overly pedantic

It is nice when an article's introduction (i.e. - the text before the contents) provides a quick and simple introduction to the topic for the uninitiated. Topics can be more deeply developed in the body of the article. This article's introduction includes two references and the words "zetetic" and "maieutic". It seems written more to exhibit the author's profundity then to inform the inquiring reader.

Anyone else have the same impression?

--Tcolgan 14:33 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor change made to Descartes' Cogito ergo sum reference

There's a rather popular falsehood floating around out there that claims the "Cogito" is an a priori argument, when in fact the entire DOM is based on both an empirical form and rational skepticism (The Consequences of Ideas p.85-87).

If a true a priori does exist, then it must be cited as well. If it doesn't, then the whole subsection here should be overhauled. EDIT: Sources point to Kant as the culprit, but then we're using a critic of Descartes to define his own rationalism.

--Obiwanjacoby 04:16 22 October 2008

Rationalism is an old nonrational world

Many old supposed rationalists said things opposite to modern physicalism and metaphysical naturalism.

The ignorant René Descartes shifted the center of thought from the brain to the soul (nothingness isn't compartmentalizable nor attributable amongst different persons and memories, it is unprocedural and it cannot be expressed in different states in order to record information; if the soul isn't rationalist no hypernymous theory elaborates on it neither any observational data). Shifting the center of thought doesn't answer any question on the informational * characteristics and function of the thinking and sentiencing organ.

Rationalism is a good word, but being used in the past, it's unrationalist, because even people who had the intention to be rationalists in the past, actually weren't to the fullest.