"Rationalists" are far from rational: ridiculous claims founded on innate ideas. Baseless speculation about reality usually with some quasi-religious undertones (Decartes, Leibniz).
So, why were they so prominent in philosophy and why do their ideas still have any merit? By the time Locke started publishing his work, that should've been the end of rationalism as a whole.
Even something seemingly independent of experience that could resemble a synthetic judgement (mathematics) is stupid because closed systems such as those do not tell us anything about reality.
Ethan Edwards
Stupid fuck, you do realize when we teach philosophers it's not meant to be a suggestion to pick up their system and run with it uncritically. They were historically important figures who had important elucidations even if ultimately based on a shoddy foundation.
Jace Cooper
Stupid fuck
Angel Reyes
good responses
Dylan Ortiz
Stupid fuck
Jeremiah Moore
>rationalism
Anthony Sanders
Lockean empiricism was a gigantic discourse spanning centuries and had a lot of weird pathological forms, usually intimately intertwined with bizarre and over-enthusiastic Enlightenment political programs. You should research the history of Locke's concepts and their use by various different discourses if that's what you mean. Similar for rationalism though that's even more diffuse, bordering on meaningless without more precise definition.
If by Locke's empiricism you mean some kind of idealized inductive method of natural philosophy, then you also have to define what you mean by that, because it's not even as simple as "that has been tried already," it's more like "about twenty different discourses with mutually exclusive and contradictory metaphysical programs (in the Popperian sense) considered themselves Lockean empiricists in that fashion."
The most that can be safely inferred from your post is that you probably don't enjoy ultra-radical subjective idealisms, like Fichte. But that's pretty meaningless since everyone agrees with you there.
Chase Cox
wow you solved philosophy congrats Leibniz BTFO I mean what did he know anyway amirite? XD
Jackson Jenkins
Name a bigger retard in western philosophy
Michael Gomez
...
Sebastian Johnson
im no fan of russell but hes not even close to mill here
Caleb Parker
it's not his fault that Bentham made him a retard
Angel Cox
kek
Oliver Clark
>discourses
Ryder Barnes
:( that photo's part 1/3, his wiki page is BIG, BUDDY
Logan Rogers
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.
Julian Miller
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!
Aiden Sullivan
this dude invented chicken?
Jackson Sanchez
>what came first >Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell
Bentley Fisher
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.
Owen King
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
Matthew Richardson
Toppest of keks
Caleb Rodriguez
He's trying to smuggle "dude science lmao" through the backdoor into Veeky Forums
Ian Thompson
he didn't "disprove" Russell's foundations idiot
Mason Howard
whadda b8 nice trips though
Anthony Richardson
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.
Easton Bennett
why do utilitarians get so much hate here?
Hunter Bennett
Because they're fucking dumb
Liam Perez
>that one time Hume posed for a painting with a pair of panties on his head
Kayden Kelly
In the thumbnail it kinda looks like a piece of meat trying to eat his head.
Or maybe my screen is just dirty.
Jayden Gomez
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.
Colton Garcia
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
Carter Myers
Because they dare disgusting materialist trash, that needs to burned from the face of the Earth.
Aaron Peterson
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?
Chase Jones
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
Gabriel Martin
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.
Justin Harris
>axioms >developed
Xavier Perry
>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
Benjamin Rivera
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.
Ryder Price
Change mathematics in the last line to arithmetic.
Nathan Walker
>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
Joseph Brooks
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.
Hudson Young
this unironically
Jacob Torres
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
Ian Cruz
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.
Evan Campbell
No I do understand. I just presumed you were making an actual proposition and not stating the mundanely obvious
Robert Sanders
Both.
Mason Reyes
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
Oliver Parker
I am smarter than everyone else though, statistically speaking
Adrian Williams
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.
Brayden Morris
>Not to mention Russel was a literal cuck.
That is really the most important thing
Daniel Hughes
Then learn to articulate yourself better you faggot
Colton Wright
Articulate your mouth around my cock you little bitch
Dominic Peterson
>I am smarter than everyone else though, statistically speaking Veeky Forums in a nutshell
Carson Reyes
>Hilbert >mathematical genius
William Carter
"reason" isn't necessarily independent of experience.
Isaac Roberts
There is experience without reason - or do lunatics and animals not experience?