[inquest]

Well, if you go talking about rational/empirical syntheses, then I wouldn't call it rationalism; I'd call it rationalism/empiricism or something. I think that's different from what the author was getting at.

In any case, even reason and experience aren't always enough. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know is right, even if you can't put it into precise terms at a given moment. Ignoring that voice can win you a lifetime membership in the Jacobin Club.

[general_re]

I think that's different from what the author was getting at.

Certainly - if you get to define for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss, said dismissal will invariably prove shockingly easy ;)

In any case, even reason and experience aren't always enough. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know is right, even if you can't put it into precise terms at a given moment. Ignoring that voice can win you a lifetime membership in the Jacobin Club.

In some areas, but not, I think, in the political sphere. In politics, when you stop listening to the head, the thing that generally speaks up in its place is appetite - consider the modern liberal. Besides, there hasn't been a politician, theorist, or theory yet that deserves leaps of faith. "Trust us - we know what's good for you and yours" is a rather risky place to suspend the use of reason and experience....