Empiricism and Rationalism

If you don't think about a subject both empirically and rationally, you should not pretend to have true knowledge of it. Empiricists are stupid because they think sensory experience is more valid than rationalist points. Rationalists are stupid because they think rational ideas are more valid than empiric senses. They are both equally stupid because subjects which are real can be considered both rationally and empirically (validly). This is what Descartes did, and what Kant did. When you realize that empiricism and rationality are not mutually exclusive of one another, but rather mutually required for true knowledge, then you will start to understand reality as it is.

I just wanted to share what I've been thinking for a while now - subjectively, we get our identity from time and that is what defines us through all this change. This comes directly from what I said above, but how? Answer that for me and I will be truly grateful.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

1. every good rationalist wants empiric experiments to prove his point, never met a single rationalist just ignoring collected data, because that would be irational.
2. empiricism as you describe it was a philosophical approach to determine the different approaches to find basic facts, and it is true for many things in our daily lifes: if we didn't experience it, we don't know.
3. wtf is a empiric sense?

Also you do realise the English language uses the word a bit different than what it should mean? It means basically just if the common shared theory says X+X=Y, but i ran tests and got over 2000times the result X+X=P, then a empirist would always prefer the proven, just as a rationalist would. You are putting two against eachother which are not found without eachother since around 1900.

But when you poor thing get your identity from time and not from experience and thinking about what changes and why, but instead run around declaring non-existing people and approaches for stupid, just because you can't grasp a theoretical definition to describe the different ways on how to approach a problem, not life itself, then...
Who's stupid?

a reply to: Peeple

1) Exactly. To truly know you're on to something, you want to see it work in REALITY. If the REAL data doesn't match your predictions, perhaps you knew less than you thought.

2) Empiricism as I describe it means precisely "A theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."

3) An empiric sense would be sound, sight, feeling, smell, taste, or any other sensory input you can dream up, including senses like guilt, pride, humility, ect.

I am not putting them against one another, I am uniting them. Real things have both an empiric and rational explanation, and never just one or the other. That's what makes them real.

As for the identity from time, if you don't feel me, well, I can't help ya. It's true and I know it, that much I'm willing to say. As for approaching problems I know of but two methods. The analytical approach or the numerical approach. When I say stupid, I mean simply wrong. They are often the smartest folks. But what I mean is that knowledge is like a math equation with three variables. If you know any two variables, then you know the 3rd exactly. If you knew only one, you could see how it affects the relationship between the other two, but wouldn't have an exact idea of the relationship without playing with all of them. So, in essence, you have true knowledge when your empirical and rational justifications for things line up. If you have only an empirical understanding, you will not know how rational arguments affect your position, and if you have only a rational understanding, you will not know how empirical arguments affect your position. If you reject either of the arguments entirely, you are going to be off when you try to define what is true. The truth is that both should influence your calculations. They are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they are codependent when considering real things.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

Well you are the only one i know who ever seperated them, so: okay... Good for you, welcome to reality.

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII
... - subjectively, we get our identity from time and that is what defines us through all this change. This comes directly from what I said above, but how? Answer that for me and I will be truly grateful.

This subjective identity you are speaking of is not an actual entity - it is a sense of separation that we enforce moment-to-moment via the point-of-view-making mechanism of attention. So our actual sense of separate self-identity is an activity NOT an actual entity.

Upon further inspection of this point-of-view-making activity we call self, we find that we are not actually that either.

When we get beyond this notion of being a separate knower over against all objects and others, we begin to see we are unconditional awareness, not merely a separate subject apparently knowing objects.

This disposition of separating the subject from the object is fine for scientific study, but does not hold up when fully considering our actual situation here.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

The only point I have a problem with is the " mutually required for 'true' knowledge."

I can observe an insane act. I may have-and probably don't- have a rational explanation for that act. The truth of the act itself is self-evident/ empirical.

It is a level of truth. A level of reality. Incremental, not absolute.

Perhaps 'true' should be replaced with 'complete' truth?

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII Empiricists are stupid because they think sensory experience is more valid than rationalist points. Rationalists are stupid because they think rational ideas are more valid than empiric senses.

Without sensory experience how could one even be aware of an idea?
I don't think it comes down to which is most valid - but I would say that sensory experience is primary.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII

I know of no rationalists who aren't also empirical. You need one to be the other...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, rationalism places reason above empiricism.

Rationalism

ETA: But I know what you mean, and I agree. Empiricism requires rationalism, while rationalism requires empiricism. It is anti-empirical to refute rationalism while it is anti-rational to refute empiricism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LesMis, does this mean you now believe in and support some "isms"?

a reply to: bb23108

I'm not the topic of this thread.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

I'm not the topic of this thread.

I understand that, but your thoughts on these matters are appreciated, and I am curious as to what you actually think of rationaiism and empiricism given you recently said you did not believe in any "isms". That certainly could be relevant to this thread, it seems to me.

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII
If you don't think about a subject both empirically and rationally, you should not pretend to have true knowledge of it. Empiricists are stupid because they think sensory experience is more valid than rationalist points. Rationalists are stupid because they think rational ideas are more valid than empiric senses. They are both equally stupid because subjects which are real can be considered both rationally and empirically (validly). This is what Descartes did, and what Kant did. When you realize that empiricism and rationality are not mutually exclusive of one another, but rather mutually required for true knowledge, then you will start to understand reality as it is.

I just wanted to share what I've been thinking for a while now - subjectively, we get our identity from time and that is what defines us through all this change. This comes directly from what I said above, but how? Answer that for me and I will be truly grateful.

You have just thrown around a lot of philosophical buzz words such as "true knowledge" and "empiricism" and "rationalism" and "reality" and "identity" and "stupid". There is a lot of discussion to be had with trying to figure out what all of these buzz words actually mean, so I will keep my response focused just on Rationalism and Empiricism.

You have done well to recognize that empiricism and rationalism are not mutually exclusive of each other. However, it is not productive to say Rationalists are stupid and Empiricists are stupid because today, Rationalists and Empiricists for the most part do not exist. In general, Rationalism and Empiricism are tools for solving philosophical questions, not identifiers for types of philosophers. There are still a few philosophers today that identify by one or the other, but it is foolish and counterproductive to do so, and here is why...

In textbooks, Descartes is commonly referred to as the Father of Rationalism. But if you look back at the history of philosophy, you will see that Descartes was also the father of Empiricism and the Scientific Method. He was equally foundational to both Rationalism and Empiricism. While Descartes was alive there were no distinctions between Rationalism and Empiricism; they were both parts of Descartes overall philosophy. The problem was Descartes never came up with a coherent philosophical view as he could not effectively reconcile faith and reason. After his death, philosophers saw the obvious inconsistencies in his philosophy, and separated his philosophy into two parts: Rationalism and Empiricism. Because both of these are fragments of Descartes' original philosophy, neither has the explanatory power to solve major philosophical issues. Rationalism and Empiricism are only effective in solving philosophical questions within specific fields of philosophy, not overarching questions of philosophy, so a philosopher who wants to coherently answer any overarching questions of philosophy cannot claim to be either a Rationalist or Empiricist.

With all do respect OP, if I am picking up what you are laying down,i don't think you can answer that question without encountering paradox.

I feel it's one of those things that someone has to see for themselves.

^:facepalm: I'm sorry JamesCookieIII.

My last post in your thread is ignorant.

It's embarrassing, but to illustrate numerically how I came to an understanding:

0.3̅ + 0.6̅ = .9̅

1/3 + 2/3 = 1

0.9̅ ≠ 1

Contemplating the difference in the above equations, helped to show me. Idk, if anyone else can see where I'm going with that example, though hopefully it can stimulate some more discussion.

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
^:facepalm: I'm sorry JamesCookieIII.

My last post in your thread is ignorant.

It's embarrassing, but to illustrate numerically how I came to an understanding:

0.3̅ + 0.6̅ = .9̅

1/3 + 2/3 = 1

0.9̅ ≠ 1

Contemplating the difference in the above equations, helped to show me. Idk, if anyone else can see where I'm going with that example, though hopefully it can stimulate some more discussion.

hey sorry for not getting back in a while. I agree with your example above. The measurable ones are the fractions. The rational ones (deducible ones) are the repeating decimals, and the last EQ is the product of true knowledge : )

bravo

Your original post i was having a little trouble identifying "the question" xD. Can't two people be doing different things at the same time? Like can't i truly put something down relative to me while you pick something up relative to you at the same instant? We can look at the same object from different perspectives, or we could agree to consider it from the "objects" perspective or even some other point in space correct?

Thank you.

To follow my line of thought...

Your opening post was pointing to the relationship between empirical and rational thought both being required to help understand the true nature of reality.

Personally, the practice of empirical thought appears to go heavy on quantitative data.The measurable or "hard" data that forms the basis of the scientific method.In my opinion, rational thought also takes into consideration the qualities of a subject closer to heart.These qualities don't necessarily lend themselves to traditional forms of measurement, or tend to lean towards intuition, and more subjective forms of thinking.

I get the impression that this is a false dichotomy, though it can appear very real.Your position in this thread suggests to me that you are trying to point to that.

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII

I am not putting them against one another, I am uniting them. Real things have both an empiric and rational explanation, and never just one or the other. That's what makes them real.

As for the identity from time, if you don't feel me, well, I can't help ya. It's true and I know it, that much I'm willing to say. As for approaching problems I know of but two methods. The analytical approach or the numerical approach. When I say stupid, I mean simply wrong. They are often the smartest folks. But what I mean is that knowledge is like a math equation with three variables. If you know any two variables, then you know the 3rd exactly. If you knew only one, you could see how it affects the relationship between the other two, but wouldn't have an exact idea of the relationship without playing with all of them. So, in essence, you have true knowledge when your empirical and rational justifications for things line up. If you have only an empirical understanding, you will not know how rational arguments affect your position, and if you have only a rational understanding, you will not know how empirical arguments affect your position. If you reject either of the arguments entirely, you are going to be off when you try to define what is true. The truth is that both should influence your calculations. They are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they are codependent when considering real things.

This hit close to home for me.

It reminded me of some of the challenges I encountered discussing metaphysics with a scientist friend of mine in the past.He always wanted hard data or experiments that could be done to validate my position, and had a hard time accepting that the ideas I shared could work for him.I love him, and those discussions we had did a lot for me.I feel a minor sense of disappointment.I wanted to see him be more open minded, to better know that he was able to get as much out of our relationship as I did.My first response in your thread is me, projecting that.

So mixing apples and oranges, the example I posted illustrates how I on a certain level I realized just how intertwined everything is.I was wondering what happened to the 0.0̅1(or 1 approaching infinite zero).Why couldn't I reconcile the difference?This kept me up, many nights.lol

I noticed this question, was starting to take it's toll on me.I had a brilliant teacher at the time, so I decided to ask for help.His answer blew my mind.Your data is only as good as the tools you use to get it!

Edit:

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII
Your original post i was having a little trouble identifying "the question" xD. Can't two people be doing different things at the same time? Like can't i truly put something down relative to me while you pick something up relative to you at the same instant? We can look at the same object from different perspectives, or we could agree to consider it from the "objects" perspective or even some other point in space correct?

C)All of the above.Without killing cats or babbling on too much, I was specifically questioning if my perspective was in line with the topic you hand in mind for your thread.

Rationalism and empiricism are separated in economics. The conventional university educated establishment says that science can only be empirical, like physics.

Some economists, The Austrians and maybe others, claim that rationalism can be scientific as long as the "naturally given fact" is accepted as the limit and starting point of the ratiocination.

The gift of empiricism has been the discovery of postulates, or theories, or "natural givens". The atom is an example of a "natural given fact". A chemist can use the concept of the atom without knowing all of its properties or components.

Rationalism is only as good as the concepts it uses, the concepts must correspond to the real relation in relevant ways.

Empiricism can only study one variable at a time. Empiricism is limited to situations in which the environment can be completely controlled and a single property isolated and varied.

I think the rise of fuzzy logic in today's world helps to take a holistic approach in a more practical sense...