My way of using the term rationalism may become a little clearer, perhaps, if we distinguish between a true rationalism and a false or a pseudo-rationalism. Though perhaps recognizing reason and scientific argument as tools that may do well enough if we wish to scratch the surface of artemis or as means to serve some irrational end, the irrationalist will insist that human is in the main, not rational. In order to see that he is less, we need only consider how is the number of men who are capable of argument; this is why, according to the irrationalist, the majority of men will always have to be tackled by an appeal to their emotions and passions artemis than by an appeal to their reason. of religions, and great statesmen. Even the few scientists who take reason and science seriously are bound to their rationalist attitude merely because they love it. What I shall call pseudo-rationalism is the intellectual intuitionism of Plato. Admittedly, intellectual gifts may be different in this artemis and they may contribute to reasonableness; but they need not. But man artemis also more than just a rational animal, since all that really matters in his life beyond reason. Thus rationalism in our sense is diametrically opposed to all those modern Platonic dreams of brave new worlds in artemis the growth of reason would artemis controlled or planned by some superior reason. The irrationalist attitude may be developed along the following lines. It is the immodest belief one s superior intellectual gifts, the claim to be initiated, to know with certainty, and with authority. artemis even in these rare cases, it is the emotional make-up of man and not his reason that determines his attitude artemis . Clever men may be very unreasonable; they may cling to their prejudices and may not expect to hear anything worth while from oth ich includes criticism, and the art listening to crit ers. According to our view, however, we not only owe our reason to others, but we can never excel others in our reasonableness in a way that would establish claim to authority; authoritarianism and rationalism in our sense cannot be reconciled, since argument, whicism, is the basis of reasonableness. In a similar way I shall now describe irrationalism, indicating at the same artemis how an irrationalist is likely to defend it. The position here adopted is very different from the popular, originally Platonic, view of reason as a kind of faculty, which may be possessed and developed by different men in vastly different degrees.