Romanticism - if it feels right, it is "right"
Rationalism - if it is informed with consistent internal logic, it is "right"
Empiricism - if it works under hostile testing, it is provisionally considered correct.
Empiricism is a relatively new way of looking at things.
Seems to work a whole lot better than the earlier modes.
It's fairly easy to see the difference in civilization before and after empiricism.
Oh I agree with you there, King Prout. Also, I really don't see Romanticism as a mode of thinking, but rather more as an "attitude," and a quite atmospheric one at that. The potential "defect" of rationalism is that it still "works," even if we're not considering anything external to ourselves. (The German Transcendental Idealist philosopher Hegel definitely showed us that this is possible, with his "dialectical science.") Empiricism at least forces us to engage the world "outside" of us.
But you're right to say that its results are only "provisionally correct." The hard fact seems to be that there is no way we can know anything with absolute certainty in this world. Except (oddly enough) the existence of God. But that knowledge is granted by the Spirit; it comes to us as a free gift, not as the result of empirical investigation.
Perhaps you think that last statement is pretty silly. Well, to a certain type of mind, Christians are pretty silly. Some would even say "dangerous."
But that would be a sort of "Romantic" attitude.... "if it feels right, then it must be right."
King, I don't know whether you celebrate Easter or Passover. But if you do, have a marvelous Easter/Passover!
Thank you so much for writing.