How is it that a distinction can possibly be made between "rational" philosophy and other forms? It seems to me that if philosophy does not stem, as mathematics, from axiomatic ideas argued forward, then all you have is a series of esoteric conjectures. Any asshole can make a series of esoteric conjectures--ever been in a bar on a Friday night?

The attacks against philosopher who argue rationally are simply absurd. The one that gets me the most, though, is Wittgenstein. Such BRILLIANT leaps forward in logic, in categorization, on the nature of dialectics and language, all stemming from rational argumentation. And yet, right there in the Blue Book, he claims that philosophers aren't supposed to be rational in the mathematical sense. Well how in the hell else are you supposed to argue a philosophy?

You can't. The proof lies in the fact that a circular reasoning (which is rationally invalid) must be entered in order to defend any non-rational system of philosophy. Fuck, we have to enter into circular reasoning to even discuss the EXISTENCE of non-rational philosophy.

Perhaps I've simply spent too much time deep inside the inner workings of numbers and logic and real theories. Perhaps I am biased. But give to me any argument in favor of non-rational philosophy, and I'll defeat it--rationally. To defend non-rational philosophy, one must be irrational. By definition, if one is irrational, the defense is invalid. If you support non-rational philosophy via reason, you enter into philosophical contradiction--again invalid.

So fuck you Descartes.