| 1. That's not an answer.; it's an evasion.
2. Therefore rationalism is irrational, meaning that one who is rational should not be rational. As far as paradoxes go, that one's pretty straight forward. More importantly, there are no gorund by which one should consider rationalism supperior to any other form of knowledge. Basically, your argument refutes itsaelf, making it untenable as a logical argument. It is illogical (and therefore irrational).
3. Let me rephrase: if the best argument you can come up with (and so far it's the only one), is that rationalism is a preference, rather than a logically derived philsophy, then it's hardly a belief system that I am going to take seriously.
4. What I believe has nothing to do with the validity and logical consistency of your arguments (that's a form of an adhominum fallacy). If your argument is illogical (which I have demonstrated that it is, and you have refused to refute), then what I or anyone else (including yourself) believes will have absolutely no impact on lack of logic. Attempting to claim the moral high-ground on the basis of an illogical philosophy that you refuse to define the key terms is laughable.
Finally, I'm not telling you to believe what I believe. Nor do I expect you to change what you believe (you're obviously committed to it, so I that would be futile). I merely hope that other people reading this will realise that you have never adequately described rationalism and, to the extent that you have, it's logically inconsistent.
Call what I do intellectual sniping if you will. I really don't care. It's philosophical critique, and if you don't like it, I suggest you leave philosophy alone. |