NationStates Jolt Archive

Fear not - although this is a philosophy thread (again) I'm not seeking the wisdom of you all. I just want to ask a simple question - the big one, as philosophy goes.

Would you say you are a Rationalist or an Empiricist?

I only ask because there was quite a heated debate in my philosophy class today on this - me and my friend are basically the only hardcore Rationalists in the class lol, the rest are filthy Empiricists :p hehe.

But seriously, what are you? And why? Don't be afraid to admit to being an Empiricist - nobody's perfect :D I mean even I'm not uber-Rationalist myself, I reckon knowledge can come through sensory experience too, but I don't think it's exclusively that, and I do think reason is the main source of true knowledge. So yeah, how about you? And you don't have to be a hardcore fan of either - just which do you agree with more.

p.s. If you don't do philosophy and/or have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, fear not, you have been catered for :) We aim to please.

Empiricist. I'd love to debate the point but I have to go to bed now so I'll come back tomorrow.

Empiricist. I'd love to debate the point but I have to go to bed now so I'll come back tomorrow.

Oh :( Curses - I hpoe I'm not as badly outnumbered here as I am at college lol.

Probably more of a rationalist here, though I believe a certain degree of empirical truths are necessary to acquire a starting point onto which rationalism can build.

I would probably place myself in the empiricist camp. If I understand the rationalist position correctly, I really don't see the point. Who cares if our perceptions are not absolute certainties? They work just fine as an explanation of the universe and I just don't see why looking for absolute certainty is necessary.

Would you say you are a Rationalist or an Empiricist?


I might be inclined to answer,,,,,,,if I knew what the difference was.

I would probably place myself in the empiricist camp. If I understand the rationalist position correctly, I really don't see the point. Who cares if our perceptions are not absolute certainties? They work just fine as an explanation of the universe and I just don't see why looking for absolute certainty is necessary.

I see what you mean - and that's why agree that sensory experiences are a source of knowledge, but I definitely think a priori knowledge is way better, more certain etc than a posteriori. <----- Cool words huh? :D

I might be inclined to answer,,,,,,,if I knew what the difference was.

Rationalism states that true knowledge can only be gained through reason (deduction, logic etc) much like mathematics - that's always been the Rationlists fortress.

Empiricism states that true knowledge can only be gained through our experiences - that is to say our sensory experiences - so what we see, hear etc etc.

I suppose I'm a bit of a pragmatist.
Reality might be a grand illusion, but you're stuck in it regardless. So you might as well pretend it's real untill you have something better to do.

I suppose I'm a bit of a pragmatist.
Reality might be a grand illusion, but you're stuck in it regardless. So you might as well pretend it's real untill you have something better to do.

Lol, nice - that makes more sense than most of the philosophies I've been taught about so far :D

Does it actually answer the question? Is pragmatism an alternative to Rat and Epm?

In this case I think I'll come down as a Rationalist.


Also, can I buy some pot from you?

How can someone have the idea to develop a philosophy that denies that people have ideas?

Does it actually answer the question? Is pragmatism an alternative to Rat and Epm?In a way. It denies both. You can't get complete knowledge either way.
Not everything can be derive logically, hence goedels incompleteness theorem. So that leaves rationalism in the cold a bit.
Empirism however is only as trustworthy as your senses. And our senses tell us they can be fooled quite easily. Hence optical illusions, for example.

More to the point perhaps is that rationalism is disconnected from our world without empirism. We can't do anything with it untill we accept/assume the world exists, like our senses tell us.

In this case I think I'll come down as a Rationalist.


Also, can I buy some pot from you?

Hurrah! Rock on! w00t! etc etc. Good man - you should come and join my philosophy class - me and my friend could use some reinforcements lol.

Not from me, but I could get you some from my friend.

How can someone have the idea to develop a philosophy that denies that people have ideas?
Plato had a sense of that. All ideas exist, and we're just plucking them out by a means of perception rather than actually creating them.

Plato had a sense of that. All ideas exist, and we're just plucking them out by a means of perception rather than actually creating them.
Was he the "There is nothing new under the sun" fellow?

Or was that Paul Simon?

How can someone have the idea to develop a philosophy that denies that people have ideas?

Oooh nice - I'll have to remember that one for next lesson :)

In a way. It denies both. You can't get complete knowledge either way.
Not everything can be derive logically, hence goedels incompleteness theorem. So that leaves rationalism in the cold a bit.
Empirism however is only as trustworthy as your senses. And our senses tell us they can be fooled quite easily. Hence optical illusions, for example.

Ah - that's pretty cool. Although it does leave my poll on the doorstep a bit. Not to worry :) All pragmatists - just make sure you declare it unmistakeably.

More to the point perhaps is that rationalism is disconnected from our world without empirism. We can't do anything with it untill we accept/assume the world exists, like our senses tell us.

Ah, touche. I'll have to bear that in mind - after all, a man who can't change his mind is a poor man indeed.

Rationalism states that true knowledge can only be gained through reason (deduction, logic etc) much like mathematics - that's always been the Rationlists fortress.

Empiricism states that true knowledge can only be gained through our experiences - that is to say our sensory experiences - so what we see, hear etc etc.

I'm a both person.

brand names are an excuse not to do your own thinking, just like they are in religeon and idiology.

the kind of world we all have to live in is what counts
creating and exploring are what gratify
and people beating each other over the head
interferes with doing so

=^^=
.../\...

Hurrah! Rock on! w00t! etc etc. Good man - you should come and join my philosophy class ... Not from me, but I could get you some from my friend.

I just might then. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/shiftyeyes3d.gif

brand names are an excuse not to do your own thinking, just like they are in religeon and idiology.

the kind of world we all have to live in is what counts
creating and exploring are what gratify
and people beating each other over the head
interferes with doing so

=^^=
.../\...
A poet!

And a feline one, at that.

I tend to think of philosophies as simply one way of looking at the world, not meant to be all-encompassing or "the truth". Like holding a certain filter up to your eye, while still keeping the other one open.

Both are important. I consider Rationalism to be dominant but inherently anchored to Empiricism.

I'm a both person.

Ah that's cool - although I highly recommend Rationalism as a main bastion - we have cookies :D

brand names are an excuse not to do your own thinking, just like they are in religeon and idiology.

the kind of world we all have to live in is what counts
creating and exploring are what gratify
and people beating each other over the head
interferes with doing so

Huh? Was that irrelevant or did I completely miss the point?:confused:

bah, rationalists merely wind up playing with definitions.

I just might then. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/shiftyeyes3d.gif

Hehe, you'd be most welcome I assure you. Join us...

*creepy voice* Come play with us AC, for ever and ever and ever...

bah, rationalists merely wind up playing with definitions.

Ah? How d'you mean?

I don't think I'd trust my senses, or my reason. They have their uses, but they aren't infalliable. Where it really matters, I suppose, I'd bother a bit more toward finding that answer.. but so far I've yet to much find a case for that. Both reason and senses can provide decent estimates, I think, but in the end they're just tools. They help you along, but you've gotten in over your head when you put so much faith in them.

Was he the "There is nothing new under the sun" fellow?

Or was that Paul Simon?
I don't think so, though I could be mistaken. It does, certainly, seem like something the Platonic Ideal might suggest.

Hehe, you'd be most welcome I assure you. Join us...

*creepy voice* Come play with us AC, for ever and ever and ever...

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/misc/hairrise.gif

I don't think I'd trust my senses, or my reason. They have their uses, but they aren't infalliable. Where it really matters, I suppose, I'd bother a bit more toward finding that answer.. but so far I've yet to much find a case for that. Both reason and senses can provide decent estimates, I think, but in the end they're just tools. They help you along, but you've gotten in over your head when you put so much faith in them.

So we can never have true knowledge? Not even maths?

“Was he the ‘There is nothing new under the sun’ fellow?”

No, that is from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. It was written by King Solomon.

Anyway, I believe that no truths can be discovered without reason, but some might require some sensory input (sensory input is pointless if you can't make... well, sense of it.) If I had to come down on one side though, it would definitely be rationalist.

So we can never have true knowledge? Not even maths?

Somewhat.. I won't tackle the idea of maths being perfect or not.. not sure I'm qualified for that. =P What I will say, though, is that once you toss in the human factor, I think as accurate as you can be, there's still some chance for error. There could be something perfectly worked out, but I wouldn't put it past people to screw it up.

Both are important. I consider Rationalism to be dominant but inherently anchored to Empiricism.

I agree with Ekland in saying you cannot have one without the other. I voted for Rationalism, as in Descartes' continental rationalism, because Empiricism states that ALL knowledge is gained from experience and there is nothing universal to humans and nothing "a priori". I know this to be false, so there goes Empiricism.

But rationalism isn't everything. We do have some a priori knowledge, but experience gives us much of our "knowledge", so the best explanation of human knowledge would be a mix of the two. They are NOT mutually exclusive, because one can have innate ideas and gain others from living. It's not a Science vs. Religion kind of thing ...even though you can mix science and religion. ...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Also, I'm kind of an instrumentalist. If neither of those two philosophical schools fits well, you can mix them or abandon them. They're merely tools.
That's one thing I don't really like about organized philosophy. There is more than two choices, and they both might be equally correct.

So we can never have true knowledge? Not even maths?
Math could be a path to true knowledge, only if we can ever understand all possible math. For example look at calculus. It encompasses an infinite of mathmatical ideas based on relationships and theorms. There could be a whole other branch of complex mathamatics that we have not even discovered yet, and that could open the way for even more truths.

[a bit off topic] Personally I've always had a few qualms about math. Look at a square meter. m^2. Simple enough, length times width equals an area. Then you think about m/s. Okay, meters per second, thats simple too, its velocity. How far you go in a certain amount of time.
But then think about acceleration, m/s^2. Velocity per second. What exactly is a second squared though? Its a unit of time... How exactly do you square that? Time does not have dimensions to square like physical objects do... or does it? :confused: [/a bit off topic]

Math could be a path to true knowledge, only if we can ever understand all possible math. For example look at calculus. It encompasses an infinite of mathmatical ideas based on relationships and theorms. There could be a whole other branch of complex mathamatics that we have not even discovered yet, and that could open the way for even more truths.

[a bit off topic] Personally I've always had a few qualms about math. Look at a square meter. m^2. Simple enough, length times width equals an area. Then you think about m/s. Okay, meters per second, thats simple too, its velocity. How far you go in a certain amount of time.
But then think about acceleration, m/s^2. Velocity per second. What exactly is a second squared though? Its a unit of time... How exactly do you square that? Time does not have dimensions to square like physical objects do... or does it? :confused: [/a bit off topic]

it's shown as that, but it's really more of m/s/s, meters per second per second.

Math could be a path to true knowledge, only if we can ever understand all possible math.

You obviously haven't encountered Godel's Incompleteness Theorem yet.

In this case I think I'll come down as a Rationalist.


Also, can I buy some pot from you?

Dude, pot off the internet? Bad idea.

I'd go with the can't have one without the other crowd, in responce to the question.

I think I'm going to have to put up a tent in the Empiricist camp here. I think what it comes down to for me is true knowledge, otherwords, knowledge that something is true, is not something that one can attribute to a rational process. When one gets down to the fundamental truths of existence, it's not possible to logically deduce them. One just believes them as true. For that matter, about the only way that someone could build a logical reasoning for fundamental truths is to just accept them as true and work backwards.

it's shown as that, but it's really more of m/s/s, meters per second per second.
I know. But its still something per something. Like sandpaper. How many sand specks per square meter. sand/m^2. That is logical.

But, I still don't get m/s^2 (or m/s/s). Eitherway it is written, somewhere there has to be a perpendicular to linear time to make up for that squared time dimension. That would be 2 dimensional time right? Or am i just being weird...?

-Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a fascination with theorietical things that I don't know about.-

I voted for Rationalism, as in Descartes' continental rationalism, because Empiricism states that ALL knowledge is gained from experience and there is nothing universal to humans and nothing "a priori". I know this to be false, so there goes Empiricism. Really? So what 'a priori' knowledge did you have when you were just born?
I'd say it took me a while to learn to reason about things.. Without experience, what impulse for ratio is there?
I think Descartes was slightly mistaken when he said "I think, therefore I am", it should be "I'm aware [that I think], there for I am".

So we can never have true knowledge? Not even maths?We can have a bit. But it depends on what you consider knowledge really. Maths isn't true in any other way than by definition. That's to say it is true only under the assumption it is (i.e. that the underlying axioms are).
If the peano axioms are true, then 2+2 is 4. If certain other axioms are held true, then 2+2 may be 0, or 1, or even pi-2. You can even redefine what 2 and + mean.
Most 'knowledge' is conditional in that way.

Rationalism states that true knowledge can only be gained through reason (deduction, logic etc) much like mathematics - that's always been the Rationlists fortress.

Empiricism states that true knowledge can only be gained through our experiences - that is to say our sensory experiences - so what we see, hear etc etc.
Both positions sound silly to me. How can you be rational if you don't have some empirical knowledge or experience to be rational about? I guess I'm an empirical rationalist :)

Mmmm ... Freshman Philosophy students' black and white worlds .... tastey.

I think Descartes was slightly mistaken when he said "I think, therefore I am", it should be "I'm aware [that I think], there for I am".

Nah, unwarrented assumption there that he is the agent that thinks. All that can be stated for sure is 'There is thinking' or Cogitare Est.

Nah, unwarrented assumption there that he is the agent that thinks. All that can be stated for sure is 'There is thinking' or Cogitare Est.However, you can't be sure of that unless you're aware of it.
I don't know what that's in latin though :p

However, you can't be sure of that unless you're aware of it.
I don't know what that's in latin though :p

No, you're making the assumption again that 'being aware of' must have an agent, just as you did with 'thinking' previously. Certainly in our common experience of the world it appears that such mental activities must have agents, but we have no proof of this belief. To accept it on the basis of common sense is to reject the rest of Descartes methodology of systematic doubt. He failed to apply his own system rigorously enough at this stage and this can be seen by the way in which his conclusion is contained within his premise (I think, therefore I am).

Descartes defines himself as a 'thinking thing', but this too is unwarrented - there is no evidence that there must be a thing which thinks. He should have just limited himself to stating that there is thought. This doesn't actually mean that the main point of his philosophical project would have failed though - it would have been possible to identify the process of thought with God.

Needless to say this error is also present in Augustine's much earlier version of the cogito.

I go rational, because I am a mathematician.

I know. But its still something per something. Like sandpaper. How many sand specks per square meter. sand/m^2. That is logical.

But, I still don't get m/s^2 (or m/s/s). Eitherway it is written, somewhere there has to be a perpendicular to linear time to make up for that squared time dimension. That would be 2 dimensional time right? Or am i just being weird...?

-Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a fascination with theorietical things that I don't know about.-

Acceleration is meters per second squared, because:
Your position is meters, right?
If you want to change your position, you use speed. You travel a set number of meters, per second, right?
If you want to change your speed, you use acceleration. You accelerate a set number of meters per second, per second, right?

That's:
m OR m
m/s OR m*1/s
m/s^2 OR m*1/s*1/s

No, you're making the assumption again that 'being aware of' must have an agentNo, I'm not. Just that there must be awareness.
Although I don't see how nothing can be aware, so something must be, and that makes it an agent.

Definitely a rationalist.

Empirical knowledge is only such because of collective agreement anyway. We all agree that the sky is "blue," for example, and that makes it so. Nothing is so archetypal that it can't bear to be re-examined from time to time. Any real social truth will always stand up under such scrutiny. If something can't, it was never "true" to begin with.

IMO, this is the same as the N/S difference in the Kiersey/Myers-Briggs personality tests. People who test more iNtuitive, as opposed to Sensing, are naturally going to argue that what goes on after the data around us gets collected is where the value really lies. Not with the data itself.