Empiricism and Rationalism

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

>>>Empiricism, in philosophy, a doctrine that affirms that all knowledge is based on experience, and denies the possibility of spontaneous ideas or a priori thought. Until the 20th century the term empiricism was applied to the view held chiefly by the English philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Of these the English philosopher John Locke was the first to give it systematic expression, although his compatriot, the philosopher Francis Bacon, had anticipated some of its characteristic conclusions. The philosophy opposed to empiricism is rationalism, represented by such thinkers as the French philosopher René Descartes; the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza; and the 17th- and 18th-century German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Christian von Wolff. Rationalists assert that the mind is capable of recognizing reality by means of the reason, a faculty that exists independent of experience. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, attempted a compromise between empiricism and rationalism, restricting knowledge to the domain of experience, and thus agreeing with the empiricists, but attributing to the mind a function in incorporating sensations into the structure of experience. This structure could be known a priori without resorting to empirical methods, and in this respect Kant agreed with the rationalists.

In recent years the term empiricism has taken on a more flexible meaning, and now is used in connection with any philosophical system that finds all of its materials in experience. In the United States, William James called his own philosophy radical empiricism, and John Dewey coined the term immediate empiricism for his view of experience. The term empirical laws is applied to those laws that express relationships observed to exist among phenomena, without implying the explanation or cause of the phenomena.<<<<

Ok smarties, which side are you on?

― Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

PS Look how weird Kant looked

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/KANT.GIF

― Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

it should be clear by now but i am an Empiricist

― anthony, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Rationalism sounds more like it to me. How can people base things on their experiences when perceptions are not trustworthy?

― dave q, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm sitting on the fence. I'm a bit of a Kant.

― Sam, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Empirically — ie by looking at that picture — I deduce that Kant's wig did nothing for him.

― mark s, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

He should have gone to Wonders of Wigs and Weaves, in Headington. That wig is a cowboy job.

― Tom, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Cowboys wear hats, not wigs.

― Pete, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Rationalism. Dunno why, just do.

― Will McKenzie, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh STOP IT. I still haven't finished Bertrand Russell's Western Philosophy book. I am actually about halfway through the chaps you mention. If I remember well Spinoza, a Jewish bloke, emigrated from either Portugal or Spain to the Netherlands. From what I read, I don't agree with most of what Spinoza says. Nor with Descartes. Cogito Ergo Scum's more like it!

― nathalie, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But Russell is a pinhed: his version of eg Hegel = ill-informed piffle

― mark s, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Kant = the MAN.

And how very Hanle y to cast doubt on his philosophy because he thinks that Kant looked goofy :-)

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Does rationalism have to be based on logic? I think rationalising things is evil because it denies emotions. When you rationise a state of affairs and your response to them you are betraying your genuine needs and feelings. You are being dishonest to yourself.

But then, what dave q said is true, perceptions are not trustworthy. Empiricism requires some sort of consensus on what actually happened - hence the requirement for reproducability and reliability in evidence based medicine - and I reckon this is evil too.

This does not allow for that quantum-type theory that by measuring something you influence it. If something happens to two people, they both perceive and experince it differently. Which one is more right? They both are. If they both rationilise their experince, based on logic or whatever, then and only then will they be in accord.

Empiricism only works as a result or rationalism.

― toraneko, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

post-binary

― Geoff, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Kant attempted to unite empiricism and rationalism , saying both were valid. There are concpets wich can be said to be true logically even if you have never percieved anything, but perception is best for explaining matter related to the world.

― Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

kant looks like e.t.

― fred solinger, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You mean I came up with Kant's theory all on my own in about four and a half minutes (probably took him years) and without having to look like ET???

― toraneko, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(w/o in any way dissing mike, this is a descriptive rather than an *illuminating* way of explaining Kant's breakthrough...)

― mark s, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh? Do illuminate us then.

― Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

we're all just bobbing around in our own little bubbles of reality bumping into each other's perception of each other. You can never step in the same river twice. Sartre basically repeated that theory with 'being and nothingness' Kant-'but, was that a river I just stepped into or was it a pile of muck that I percieved to be a river' who can tell me? Ahhhh!!! the more I know, the less I know. That is all I know. Therefore all I know is in the unknowing.

― Hank, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know anything. This is not to say I don't try.

― Maria, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The real reason I posed this question is rather sinister....

― Mike Hanle y, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

wait a minute...I thought you were the all knowing. you should know the answer to this question already. You are just taunting us. The joke that no one is laughing at. Ha.

― Hank, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

MONADS

― Josh, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, monads. The monad has no windows.

However, there is no doubt that the perceived world APPEARS to be spatiotemporal.

...?

― maryann, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There are many things I wonder There are many things I don't It seems as though the things I wonder most Are the things I never find out

― maryann, Wednesday, 10 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

seven months pass...

attempting a compromise between empiricism and rationalism, kant shd have gone back the wigshop and poured sloppy pancake mix into the shopkeeper's trousers

― mark s, Sunday, 9 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

'packet rebellion' vs. 'pocket rebellion'

― Andrew L, Sunday, 9 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Empiricism = contextualist = Skinner? Rationalism = structuralist = Chomsky?

― Joe, Monday, 10 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

not sure but I think that last sentencequation is suspect in lots more ways than the first one.

― Josh, Monday, 10 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

"How can people base things on their experiences when perceptions are not trustworthy"

Empiricism doesn't mean just going by how things appear - it means that our reasoning about how things are (including whether they're really as they appear) doesn't simply occur in a vacuum, that it necessarily depends on the context of experience for its existence. If the empiricist additionally believes that this experience presents a reliable picture of the objective world then he's a Realist.

― neil, Monday, 10 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

SKinner there being Mike Skinner of The Streets?

― Pete, Monday, 10 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.