I suggest that someone edit the page to remove Nietzsche. Nietzsche is definitely not an irrationalist--though he is commonly thought to be one. See, e.g., _Gay Science_ section 2. As an alternative, I recommend Kierkegaard. -- Garbopash 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to improve this article, but it needs a lot of improvement. For one thing, it needs a solid historical foundation: who were some irrationalists and aestheticists, and what was the positivist movement they were reacting to? Basically, a list of isms without a statement of what the isms mean is only so much nonsense. Also, consider retitling the article so it is very clear what you're talking about. -- Larry Sanger
Aye, Aye Captain. It will require some delving into the old notebooks on my end, which will take some time, but I'll get to it. Although I've studied this stuff, I'm an obvious babe in the world of philosphy. I do hope to change this. -- Invictus
- Not a really significant change but I'm gonne fix the "noumenal realm" link. Cause right now it goes to a metal band page.--Jsn4 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I am delighted at seing this wiki inasmuch as I feel that a lot more needs doing. In my years as an Undergraduate Student, I studied Intellectual History and Philosophy; though I did study extensively German and Graduate-level Psychology as a senior. I can name several sources that might be of help to break this juggerknot (sp.?) qua subject. Plus I studied Nietzshe for almost 3 Semesters--one overview if extenalism where I focused on Nietzshe and Kirkegaard and Dosteviche (as well as Hegel and Heidegger); One Seminor on Neitzshe; and finally a deconstructrion, I guess that says it, of philology by Nietzshe. All these classes where taught under Professor Lawarence Hatab at Old Dominion University. Thought I studied no longer strickly philosophy, I was groomed, it seemed at times, to become a Landscape Architecture Theorist by the University of Virginia's Landscape Architecture department: Yes! it sound odd to many but the field but a ripe with the need for theorist, praxis-oriented designers to help make sense out of a tradition, which is very young in comparison to Philolophy. At UVa, I had the privilegde to study the exceedingly brillant curmungin Richard Rorty, the well-known minor so far historical Minor Philosopher, who is an expert on just this subject because it is the one he felt most troubled by, it seemed, and inherited. (Parathenically I met a fellow who was a friend of my German Friend who was amazed I was a studtend in one of Rorty's lectures; vice-versa I was equally amazed to here that he often attended Lectures vy JUrgen Habermous (sp.?)--the philosopher who sobbered me up from existenism.
Of Hand--unfortuatrately I am moving and have most of all my books-my library that I have been amazing for 20 years on Philosophy, History, Psychology, German, Cultural History, Achitecture, Landscape Architecture, Cultural Geography, and not to be discounted are my two other "loves" in live -- computers and botany and Taxonomy as well as the Horticure of Plants. So its rather hard to do am exhaustive look at the subject matter. But books I cabn remember that served well steadfast as an undergaduate--a existial philosophy student-- are as follows:
- (1) The Encycopedia of Philosophy. Pro: A lot of Information in an ecycopedic way. Con: The series to my knowledge have not been updated sense, if memorary serves me well, 1969. Philosophers at the time I recognized were Alastir (sp.?) MacIntery (spelling?); (2) the wonderful Encycopedia of the History of Ideas; where it has its pros and cons much like the oforementioned. It focusses on ideas and not individuals so that one would look up "ontological-psychology" rather than Heidegger's Being and Time. Also (3) there is a book that has an unfortuanate title in these politically times: Irrational 'Man'[sic.]". Lastly, though I know there is more; upon either locating my undergratuate papers or talking to my friend and mentor, the already named Lawence Hatab, I could draw up enough sources to create a solid stand--a very through bibliography as a first step to constructuring this wiki. Also we would want to look at the individual's writings themselves.
One objection I have to this Wiki; hoever, is the dualism of pro-science and anti-science. Hey, I learned the hard way: It takes two to tango! If I recall correctly Rorty (in Lecture in so much as I understand him) suggests that following: Frued's thoughts drew a great deal later on from the ontological pyschology that Neitzsche is involved in before is untimely death. That would I would hyothezise that the field of Study for Pyschologhy while neccessarily dropping its ontological past in sake of empericism; actually is greatly idebted to the irrational thought of Nietzshe and Freud. Who, for instanst, did the person fear the thought of S. Freud or the Medical establisment of prescriping spas? In my later years in Landscape Architecture, I have come to study more so the peasantly radical Hegel to the buttal thought of Marx and Engels? And lastly to name the third Horseman of the Apocolapse;" Darwin reduced humankind--if there is such a thing--to a species counterpart to other bi-pod and hand (paw)-using animal--the Apes. Darwin, Marx and Engel, and freud are very good scientest for their time. Historically it is unfair to compare their work ti the rigar of today' work; which all but stands upon the shoulder's of Giants, I beileve Issac Newtown is famous for saying. So deconstructed--history laid bear, it seems dead wrong to suggest that irrationalism existed as a polar opposite of Irrationalism. Its is concievable , if one knows some of the heuristic meaning of Marx and Engels, Darwin, and Freud's historically. There is a great book that exist some where; where a fourth man, I persum, and an author came up with the title of "The Four Horseman of the Twentieve Century: Break-Out of the Crystal Place." This is I know a reference I lived with in so many papers and essayies that it is an embarassment that I forgot the author. I would love to get my hands on this book--especially know as an archtiture theorists I knew just what the significance of Cyrstal Palalice was-is.
At any rate I hope to here frowm you either