Was the Divrei Chaim of Sanz a "rationalist" because he read Moreh?

In commenting on a previous post regarding the influence of Moreh, David G. points to a number of Achronim (Ohr Sameiach, Rogatchover, Gedalya Nadel) who incorporate the Moreh into their thought and were impacted by it. I would only add to his list and include the Divrei Chaim, the Yismach Moshe, R' Pinchas m'Koretz, and others. In fact, see the footnote at the end of the into to R' Kasher's "Mefa'aneyach Tzefunos" (p. 35) where he points out that while the GR"A forcefully opposed the Rambam's philosophy, the chassidic world embraced his thought and various Rebbes quote freely from Moreh.

I originally had an extra qualifying paragraph in that post that I took out, but David G. is right to call me on it and I should have explained better. Let me put it this way: the Divrei Chaim who quotes from the Moreh in his commentary on Chumash and who spent Yom Kippur night learning Moreh (!) is the same Divrei Chaim who in his tshuvos (Y.D. 105) writes that someone who denies that the Ohr haChaim was written b'ruach hakodesh is an apikores. The same Rogatchover who build his entire system of thought and learning around the Rambam's Moreh was a chassid of Chabad. Rav Kook encourages the learning of "razei Torah" and sod in anticipation of the geulah and to respond to the theological needs of our generation, but he also was a student of the Moreh. Were all these great talmidei chachamim schizophrenics?

I think not. Part of the greatness of these Torah giants is their ability to assimilate sources from all over and synthesize them into a coherent whole consistent with tradition. They were able to study Moreh and find in it the tools to bolster their yiras shamayim and avodah rather than philosophical questions, pitfalls, and challenges to the mainstream thinking of klal yisrael. The Moreh studied by the Divrei Chaim of Sanz was, quite simply put, a completely different book than the Moreh studied by someone looking for an excuse to reject the tenets of kabbalah or chassidus or other traditional beliefs and using the Moreh as cover.

None of these Torah giants were "rationalists" in the way certain contemporaries and bloggers use the term. They all were influenced by the Moreh, used the Moreh, read the Moreh, but all affirmed rather than rejected traditional beliefs. Those who veered more widely from the well tread path of tradition (let's omit specific examples) have been largely forgotten by the Torah world. Here's a simple litmus test: can you find me three examples of where the Divrei Chaim of Sanz or Rav Kook used the Moreh as a source to reject theological views held by the mainstream tradition of their time?

So to return to Davis G.'s point, I think he is right to say Moreh has exerted an influence on ba'alei machshava. However, that influence has not meant slavish conformity exclusively to the specific philosophical approach of Moreh or the rejection of mysticism because of it. It has meant (and this is why I wrote what I did) the absorption and adaption of Moreh into the larger stream of Jewish thought that has also absorbed and been influenced by mysticism and other philosophical views through the centuries. In that regard the influence has certainly been positive.