Rationalism vs. empiricism

>Accepting it as a dichotomy

IDEOLOGIA PURA

>if my experience be representative)
>Eye SEE what you did there

What do you mean by "human world"? I don't think the question of what the world is like independent of sensory experience is something only for the rationalist to consider, although certain types of empiricism may pronounce the question meaningless. I think both (with caveats) would see a mind-independent world as constituting and consisting in Truth.

Is the "vs." regarding knowledge of the human-independent world?

My statement you responded to, was wondering how the rationalists (if they did not believe the senses could produce knowledge? or just not absolutely true knowledge of the true essence of objectivity beyond human senses) could believe that sense perception was not the vital foundation of any attempt at knowledge (let alone life) to begin with?

I guess I just dont understand the meaning of this vs. Rationalists are saying 'youre scientific knowledge isnt absolute comprehension of objective reality Truth' and Empiricists are saying 'it is still the knowledge that it is and it works, and its better than nothing, and maybe we cannot or ever comprehend the total essence of absolute objective thing in itself reality Truth, but if we could at all, our methods, of using our senses and reason/imagination would be the only conceivable way of approaching such

Ok I see, I think the marriage of both perspectives is proper. We depend entirely on sensory information to even exist in the first place, and build up our understanding of 'information', and then we can use our reason to advance our knowledge and understanding.

For instance I am familiar with the concept of mass, roundness, gravity and slope; if you tell me you will place a ball like object (particular one in which I have never seen) I can accurately use my reason to presume with high quality that I know, if given a nudge toward the slope with appropriate force, that the round object will roll down.

But my prior senses were required to know about the concepts to use with comparative reasoning in the first place.

why not both?.jpg

...

Both are fucking garbage.

Kant is awful too.

Damn it why is it all so terrible.

This. The entire movement of the Modern period's philosophy was revealed as false by Nietzsche when he destroyed it. We must go back, all the way back, to the Angelic Doctor, for he tracks an alternative path to Truth.

Like you could do better lol

i REFUSE to read any thing written by a guy with such doochey type of hairstyle and will ad hom his until my last breadth ( i have boundaries)

>Kant is awful too.
>hasn't read Kant

>Nietzsche as a path to Yeezus
kys

As Kant says, knowledge begins with experience but it is not necessarily the case that it arises from experience. The tension between the two is less about metaphysics and more about epistemology, although an answer has obvious metaphysical implications.

Anyone could do better if they were fully disconnected from Platonism.
I have, it's garbage.

Egoism

>knowledge begins with experience but it is not necessarily the case that it arises from experience

What would be an example of not arising from experience?

It, intuitively, seems to me, that because we cannot conceive of existing without the foundation of our experience, it can be said that all knowledge we can potentially experience, is necessarily related to the facts of our original ability to experience anything at all.

Any case I can imagine someone telling me, of knowledge not arising from experience, I preemptively believe, that in essence, it will be the case, that in fact, that knowledge did arise due to the fact of the existence of original experiences.

knowable objective material laws (physics, climatological, genetics, technological, etc, etc) assert determining control over the long span but pure subjective acts of cognition explain the aesthetical development short run

>It, intuitively, seems to me, that because we cannot conceive of existing without the foundation of our experience, it can be said that all knowledge we can potentially experience, is necessarily related to the facts of our original ability to experience anything at all.

Hence all knowledge beginning with experience.

>What would be an example of not arising from experience?

Math

>What would be an example of not arising from experience?
>Math

It is impossible for humans to know Math without experiencing it

Kant rekt both groups of scrubs.

>I think any ultimate a-priori account of reality will tend towards rationalism while empiricism is useful as a guiding epistemology in certain instances.
every shithead undergrad think this. too bad that as long as you take seriously your mental proliferation, you will not be an empiricist and even less happy

Math is not empirical. 2 + 2 = 4 is not proven through empirical means

>current year
Still believing the synthetic/analytic divide exis5s let alone the rationalist/empiricist divide.

Patricians side with the rationalists desu. The history of every single empirical science proves that the senses are as untrustworthy as a bitch in heat.

>that the senses are as untrustworthy as a bitch in heat.
So how can be one a rationalist if humans have several cognitive biases?

>This. The entire movement of the Modern period's philosophy was revealed as false by Nietzsche when he destroyed it

Actually Stirner did that mate

>Spinoza
>Rationalist

>claims he has read Kant
>really hasn't read Kant

Neither.

>the self

yeah no thanks

Are you really dense, or merely pretending to be so?

It's the other way around.

Any sort of proof that you provide needs to be experienced to say that you know it

>Coleridge observes that all men are born Aristotelians or Platonists. The latter feel that classes, orders, and genres are realities; the former, that they are generalizations. For the latter, language is nothing but an approximate set of symbols; for the former, it is the map of the universe. The Platonist knows that the universe is somehow a cosmos, an order; that order, for the Aristotelian, can be an error or a fiction of our partial knowledge. Across the latitudes and the epochs, the two immortal antagonists change their name and language: one is Parmenides, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Francis Bradley; the other, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, William James.

Phenomenology.

>Phenomenology
i.e. the filtiest of empiricism; i'd unironically rather off myself then be forced to study any of it

Phenomenology is probably the only redeeming feature of philosophy. The rest will make you a sadistic nihilist.

>The rest will make you a sadistic nihilist
now this surely must compete for dumbest post of the year. most people would not manage to pack so much nonsense so tightly if their life depended on it. my congratulations.

...

anime villain tier

>blank slates
>dualisms
>lacking aesthetics
>false dichotomies
>forms
>things in themselves
>ontology
>metaphysics
JUST

>Not understanding the the turning back to virtue ethics and Thomism is largely inspired by Nietzsche
>Telling others to kill themselves when he is ill educated

The process by which that proof is derived and known to be true is not empirical. You don't "experience" 2+2=4.

Ok lets say I see outside of myself, 6 marbles:

I make one group of 1, one group of 2, one group of 3.

Do I empirically see, that by taking the group of 1 and 2 and making it one group, it will equal the group of 3?

Now lets say that is all I have seen, the physical movement of these groups, and the witnessing, of the equality of the quantities of separate groups

Then without looking at the world, closing my eyes, I can see in my mind:

I can make one group of 2, one group of 2, and a third group of 2, and in my mind I know that these three groups are equal.

And so it is being said, this mental activity which produces knowledge indirectly seen in the external world, is evidence of unempirical knowledge;

Though I was suggesting, it still ultimately requires the initial information from senses, so ultimately in some, sense, the knowledge produced in the mind, is still dependent on the original existence of the senses:

And then further, it can be wondered, if thought and mental imagination itself, can or should not be considered sensation itself, empirical sensation. I empirically see the groups of marbles in my mind, and the knowledge can only be true because it could possibly corelate to the physical reality, I necessarily garnered these concepts from.

>Though I was suggesting, it still ultimately requires the initial information from senses, so ultimately in some, sense, the knowledge produced in the mind, is still dependent on the original existence of the senses:

Not the lad you're replying to, but this is of course true and most rationalist would, at least in the example of math, agree with you here (though they might believe that there are some concepts that really do not have their source in experience, i.e. are inborn). The question now mostly is about whether our belief in 2 + 2 = 4 can be justified a priori. Now as to your examples of mental images of apples: if you have memory of placing two and two apples together and ending up with four, your justification of 2+2 = 4 could be called a posteriori. However, you're not using mental images of apples to justify your belief in 18 x 3 = 54; that seems, somehow, to be done a priori

b-b-but it's a tonsure user

>your belief in 18 x 3 = 54; that seems, somehow, to be done a priori

The underlying essence of math is quantity (and its various (infinite) possible relations)

You know how all math can be graphed, or at least the example you showed, or just that such examples have the 'marbles' 'apples' behind the symbols of these squiggle lines 8 29 48 5920

Those symbols are not what quantity is. 9 38 492 are bent lines, that = quantity, quanta, 4 = 4 objects, or 4 notchs on a grid made of equally spaced notches.

Someone uses memory, to remember that symbol 18 x symbol 3 = symbol 54

but those symbols equal, 18 marbles, 18 apples, 18 notches, and the knowledge is the knowledge of the 'size' of the underlying quantity associated with the symbol.

The symbol is short hand, so that all math is not (1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1+1+1)... only using 1's.

100 is short hand of the concept of 100 things, or the concept of a size 100 units greater than a size 100 units lesser;

so when using 100 in a math equation, we do not have to visually see 100 apples in our head.

Just like the bent lines "TREE"

does not physically equal bark, leaf, root

And we can write the word tree, sometimes without even having the image of a tree or any particular tree in mind, just the word tree on its own, I thought to say, before visually seeing an image of a tree in my mind, and I was focusing on the surrounding point of contention that I do not think I even visualized what a tree looks like:

seed + soil + water + sun = tree

You can teach a baby that equation without them seeing seeds, soil, water, or sun (maybe...hypothetical, but maybe... catch my drift)

The child could know a true equation of symbols, without knowing the underlying conceptual physicality that makes it true and makes it knowledge.

the day you stop believing in the principle of induction is the day you stop being a rationalist

I've actually seen this more than once. Being a Christian and having read nietzsche is a sign that someone really understands him.

Friendly reminder that maths doesn't make any sense nor any language for that matter when you realize that in order to accept the equation of mathematics you must also define the processes or equations by which we learn those facts which is impossible. How can you explain the process of how a child comes to learn that an apple is an apple beyond the simple pointing to an apple and shouting "Apple" It is all very well easy to make the claim that that is reason enough but who is to say the child hasn't understand the word to mean 'green' or 'round object', can you point to an apple and show me you are pointing to an apple and no other property? No, there comes a point where justification can no longer be made and we must simply yell "this" or "that"

>You can teach a baby that equation without them seeing seeds, soil, water, or sun (maybe...hypothetical, but maybe... catch my drift)
>The child could know a true equation of symbols, without knowing the underlying conceptual physicality that makes it true and makes it knowledge.

I almost, or maybe did by accident pose right there an argument for why what I was just prior arguing was incorrect.

A child without seeing soil, seed, water, sun, tree, could learn knowledge, of their relation.

I guess what I was arguing, was that it could not do so, unless someone before it, had sensed soil, seed etc.

So the source of knowledge is still senses.

And then furthermore, the childs senses are required to perceive the letters of the words, it can perhaps read an entire text book, without mages, words only, and maybe math too, detailing every element of soil, trees, sun, rain, seed, but what will it be picturing in its head? It would still know everything about all these elements, except what they looked like. We would likely say, the child would have greater knowledge of them, than a person that did no reading, but has seen all these things, for instance, an animal.

But still we presume, the source of all the information the child reads, is ultimately from other peoples senses of the objects.

I guess I am left to wonder, is every type of possible perspective the totality of knowledge; it is I think, it is thought, justly assumed if you were to take 1000 different creatures from bugs to birds to fish to man, that their perception of a tree would differ; all these perceptions are precisely the knowledge they are, as in actual potential existences, occurrences of real informational events,

it is just that also, the textbooks on trees are also, an approach, and apparently difficult to say inaccurately, of knowledge,

so of course I lost what even the discussion or argument was over, is senseless knowledge possible?

I would suggest consciousness itself is sense, sensation,

consciousness must have some content, to even begin a discussion of knowledge, which really perhaps suggests, memory must exist;

and so once consciousness, and/or memory has content, the mind has knowledge, to say nothing of whether the knowledge is true or false, just to say, the mind is aware of possessing information,

To discuss whether knowledge is true or false, is to say to what degree is what is in the head, congruent to what is in/of the world

To say whether knowledge, true, can be produced in the head, without being "drawn" from the world, in any way? what are the limits of that "any way",

this is that common, every thought is related to another thought (like think of things never actually seen; unicorn; but all such cases are necessarily built from prior knowledge, horse - like, 'horn') , or you cant be totally random, or you cant think of a color youve never seen,

I would like to hear other examples of rationalist argument

Ok, so rationalist is like "I know (with great certainty) that the center of the earth is not full of a billion tonnes of cotton candy, even though I have not empirically seen the center of the earth"

And empiricists must say, "it might be"

I always like to recommend Reading Sartré's Nausea and Stirner's The Ego and its Own in parallel.

Those two will keep you at a safe distance from academia and pic related.

Epistemology is the field of phil dealing with those questions. If you're truly interested, a good course of action is to check out plato.stanford.edu and search for 'epistemology', and more specifically 'rationalism vs. empiricism', 'a priori justification and knowledge' etc.

Logic is empirical, soooo... they're all empiricists, in a way. Our reasoning has been naturally selected for because it allows us to deal with the problems life throws at us. And our reasoning is obviously imperfect, just good enough for most purposes we encounter/can conceive of.
You cannot completely prove any system rationally - you have to start from some axioms, and these may be based on observations or may seem inescapable due to the structure of our brains. (but this structure varies from person to person, so you can have a logically valid system that isn't "true" per se, because your axioms may be dismissed).

guys...

>not getting all of your knowledge from divine revelation....

>Our reasoning has been naturally selected for because it allows us to deal with the problems life throws at us.

Not at all. Reason has played little to no part in natural selection. Most has been brute force and circumstances. If quick decisions or strategic thinking during a fight pass to you as reasoning, you should revise concepts.

The most important role reasoning has played is in cultural evolution (including tech) and has also been ultimately regulated by physical confrontations. Example: more adequate reasoning systems (like the mayan calendar, more precise than the gregorian approach) perished because of natural selection.

you are like a little baby

>If quick decisions or strategic thinking during a fight pass to you as reasoning, you should revise concepts.
no you

"If Rational Psychologists are permitted to argue for the simplicity and immateriality of the soul by claiming that they do not see how a material substance could realize the unity of thought, then materialists would be free to employ the same strategy to "establish" the opposite conclusion. Since the latter do not understand how an immaterial substance could realize the unity of thought, they may claim that the soul is material".

>Berkeley
>Fedora
Pls

Skepticism, also

>people still take Thomas "My semantic language games prove God" Aquinas seriously
>mfw