In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". 

In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience". 

Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.
What did Leo Strauss want to revive?
How is rationalism seen in epistemology?
how is it formally defined?
Has rationalism ever been controversial?
What was it opposed to?
Is it illogical or logical?
What is the argument  for rationalism?
Was math apart of the argument?
Did ethics come into play?
What was the last thing involved?
Were they confident in this or not sure?
What type of proof did the have?
What type of evidence did they not need?
What were there words on that?
Were there one or many standpoint to this?
What was the moderate one?
What was more extreme?
What is rationalism the same as?
What does zetetic mean?
Is it considered a discipline?
Classical Political Rationalism
 Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism
regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge
regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge
a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"
rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"
YES
In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism,
empiricism
ationalism was opposed to empiricism
logical
ed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure
that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths
that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths
yes
rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics
yes
s, ethics
metaphysics
metaphysics
confident
The rationalists had such a high confidence
empirical proof
empirical proof 
physical
physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary
there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience
there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience
many
lead to a range of rationalist standpoints
that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge
that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge
the unique path to knowledge
the unique path to knowledge
philosophy
rationalism is identical to philosophy
skeptical
zetetic (skeptical
yes
as a discipline