To credis - and thank you for the Eagleton reference; I will be on the lookout for it as well.  Reason is my favorite playground and probably my best ability, but it is limited too.  It is only as good as the unprovable deep assumptions of reality that underlie and inform it, and it hits its limits before the reality we are attempting to analyze is exhausted.  One quick example, I am fortunate enough to have a wife who loves me.  Do I have evidence that gives me reasons for believing that I just made a true statement about reality?  Yes.  Could I "prove" she loves me with scientific conclusiveness?  No.  Could I give other rational scenarios with varying degrees of possibility or probabilty for why she does what she does and acts like she does?  Yes.  Do I entertain these rational possibilities as having anything to do with reality -- no, I do not.  Does my lack of scientically conclusive proof cause me to doubt her love?  No, it just assures me that science and reason both have hit their limits.  Because I "know" (with all the human limitations that implies) that her loving me is real.  I don't think that intuitive experiential knowledge is a rant, and it is not irrational, it is just more than reason.  -- Ron S