Rationalism vs. empircism

im no fan of russell but hes not even close to mill here

it's not his fault that Bentham made him a retard

kek

>discourses

:( that photo's part 1/3, his wiki page is BIG, BUDDY

people who poop on Russell are the brainletest of the brainlets. he's one of those guys you have to admire, whether you agree with him or not.

Oh heya Bert, I was just putting the finishing touches on this ontological proof for the existence of God. By the way, no hard feelings about me disproving your three volume system of mathematics right? I appreciate your tenacity of course, but I guess every consistent system needs a little faith!

this dude invented chicken?

>what came first
>Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell

Someone hasn't read the new essays of Leibniz.
>b-but DUDE REALITY LMAO
Even if you somehow were not disgusted by Locke, Husserl should have been the last nail about the dude reality lmao crowd.

The division between rationalists and empiricists was made in the 19th century, and it doesn't mean shit. Just compare Descartes with Spinoza or Berkeley

Toppest of keks

He's trying to smuggle "dude science lmao" through the backdoor into Veeky Forums

he didn't "disprove" Russell's foundations idiot

whadda b8
nice trips though

Empiricism is simply a lack of self awareness.

Even you yourself possess something better than empiricism. What is that in you which deliberates, what is that which examines everything, what is that which forms the judgement that empiricism is superior? It is reason. Or do you believe in the superiority of empiricism without any reason?

Reason alone of all faculties examines and judges both itself and everything else. It is reason which judges the value of empiricism, not the other way around.

why do utilitarians get so much hate here?

Because they're fucking dumb

>that one time Hume posed for a painting with a pair of panties on his head

In the thumbnail it kinda looks like a piece of meat trying to eat his head.

Or maybe my screen is just dirty.

You clearly have a very poor understanding of rationalism. The "empiricism vs rationalism" distinction is a total false dichotomy -- plenty of empiricists, esp. British empiricists, can be classified as rationalists and vice versa by a lot of metrics.

Rationalism was crucially important in the development of the cognitive sciences in the 20th century. If you're willing to read some technical ling stuff, check out "Cartesian Linguistics" by Chomsky to get a sense of rationalism's importance to generative grammar.

it's not even just utilitarianism

everything mill said was dumb

including:
>mathematics is empirical
>direct reference
>everything he wrote on the mind body problem
>everything he wrote about women
etc

Because they dare disgusting materialist trash, that needs to burned from the face of the Earth.

seriously though, wtf is that thing? there's a portrait of Reid wearing one too. do you have to wear a red silk turban when you're a smart guy in Scotland?

Britain had a major hard on for Orientalism at the time with the rise of the East Indian Company, guess it was just to show how hip and with it you were

I cannot say much of what Mill wrote regarding empiricism, but is not saying mathematics is empirical the same as saying it is axiomatic? How can you debate that? Mathematics rests on clear axioms developed from logic, and nothing else.

Also, Mill was a tremendously influential economist, do not berate his intelligence. He had the first working theory of product purchasing parity for different countries and a splendid system of a fleshed out Labor theory of value, even if most of his equilibriums were proven a bit quixotic by later economists. His book on Political Economy is a must read if you are interested in a vast trove of historical examinations of economic systems and ideas.

>axioms
>developed

>but is not saying mathematics is empirical the same as saying it is axiomatic

No, not at all. Empirical directly implies it could be thought to be otherwise were the phenomenon itself different which is utterly nonsensical in the case of mathematics. Kant rightly describes mathematics as a purely a priori phenomenon

From reason, yes. Saying something is what it is takes a certain amount of reason.

Now here is the intelligent post. We could go on and on in regards to what parts of mathematics are a priori and a posteriori, but the issue here is not that. You are saying that mathematics is not empirically derived and could in any other case be no different. Our system of mathematics is thought immutable for some reason, yet the very foundation on which it rests is not unchangeable. In my opinion, to be blunt, you deal with a base ten numbering system in the first place. Would this not be empirical evidence of the amount of digits on your hand? Yes.

That’s arithmetic. The whole Cartesian system is thrown out of whack with a different base, or rules regarding numbering.

When you get to geometry however, I very much doubt that to be a system of empirical evidence. This is something contemplated, as said, of reason. But does not exist entirely a priori or a posteriori. It is from Geometry, to quote the oldest philosophers, that you owe validity to the empirical system of mathematics.

Change mathematics in the last line to arithmetic.

>That’s arithmetic. The whole Cartesian system is thrown out of whack with a different base, or rules regarding numbering

What, no you're a fucking idiot. Computer scientists work with alternative number systems all the time, it changes nothing

His political and social views are naive, and his grasp of the history of philosophy is silly, but philosophically and mathematically speaking, everyone here is a fucking brainlet compared to this guy.

this unironically

Nah it was all overrated and reddit shit. His contributions were contingent to his privileged position in the Cambridge school more than any innate talent. He's no genius like Kant, just in the right place at the right time

I do not think that you understand. I am simply saying that mathematics can definitely be viewed empirically if approached from the arithmetical side. But the most wise of arithmeticians know that their system of logic owes its basis from geometrical axioms.

No I do understand. I just presumed you were making an actual proposition and not stating the mundanely obvious

Both.

Now that is nonsense, there were a few different things being said. Next time, try not to act like you’re smarter than everyone else and actually discuss things, thanks kid

I am smarter than everyone else though, statistically speaking

Russel got his ass handed to him by Poincaré and Hilbert, you know, actual mathematical geniuses. Also Gödel's on Russel's mathematical logic.
Not to mention Russel was a literal cuck.

>Not to mention Russel was a literal cuck.

That is really the most important thing

Then learn to articulate yourself better you faggot

Articulate your mouth around my cock you little bitch

>I am smarter than everyone else though, statistically speaking
Veeky Forums in a nutshell

>Hilbert
>mathematical genius

"reason" isn't necessarily independent of experience.

There is experience without reason - or do lunatics and animals not experience?