Redykeulous
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 3356
|
| Mon 11/03/08 05:51 PM |
Bushi
QUOTE: This to me is a perfectly good reason to dump a lot of the garbage that muddles these two (not so exclusive) lines of thought. New insights allow us to filter the crap of previous generations.
I see empiricism as a set of analytical tools that overlap rationalism.
Rationalism without empirical data is a tool unused.
Rationalism is a tool within the set called empiricism.
I really understand your line of thinking, however, I think you are misinterpreting the philosophic explanations of rationalism. You are equating rationalism with abstract thought. Here’s an example of “rational” abstract thought. In high school I took algebra. I NEVER understood what I was learning. To me it had no practical use. About 10 years later I got a promotion and my boss asked me to write a program tracking teller transactions. The operating system was DOS. It took me about a week before I had that ah ha moment and all that algebra came rushing back. The same thing happened with Excel. When everyone else was having issues understanding excel I was creating huge human resource programs with it.
In those cases, I had the foundation, it was already taught to me, even though I had no idea what purpose it could serve. But I was able to think abstractly, pull that “useless” information out and apply it.
This is rational and it’s logical and it’s insight BUT it is not “rationalism”. It’s not rationalism because the information was not a priori (knowledge apart from observation or experience) it was a posteriori (knowledge based on actual observation). The observation was how to process the mathematical equations. In these cases the programs were the tools, math was the knowledge and the ability to apply abstract thinking was the rational thought you are appealing to. But those thoughts did not appear out of no-where they had a foundation.
Rationalism (philosophically speaking) has a foundation as well, it happens to be intrinsic, or inherently part of our nature as granted by the creative forces that are the reason for our being.
Abra is absolutely correct when he states QUOTE: In fact, Plato, Descarte, Aristotle, and many more famous names can go on the list of philosophers who believe that everything could be known via pure thought alone.
Every single philosopher who fall into the rationalism theory, believes we have been created to include the ability to access universal knowledge, OR, that each of us come inclusive of such knowledge within the mind – which, by they way, these same philosophers, accept as separate from body. When body is gone, mind goes on. Maybe understanding that make it easier to understand how, and why, rationalism came into being. Philosophers “rationalized” that the eternal mind (or the universal mind) was equipped from it’s creation with all the knowledge of the universe.
Personally, I like your idea of what rationalism, should be considered, but it just won’t fit into the current philosophic theory of “rationalism” vs “empiricism”.
OH – one more feature that should not be confused with rationalism is this. Empiricism does not HAVE to be ONLY that which is subjectively experienced. Empiricism can be an accepted scientific postulate or, in other words - the acceptance (belief) that another has experienced or perceived whatever it is we are accepting as knowledge. Give me a twenty page mathematical equation and tell me it means (whatever) and I may believe you, especially if it serves the scientific community as “common” knowledge. I may even begin a new theory from where the last one left off and as long as MY theory proves out, I’m good without ever having experienced solving the first part of the equation.
I think I’m repeating now – I’ll stop – sorry. WORDY (I hate when I get that remark on my word and grammar review – dah!)
QUOTE: to want to be happy, is to have known sadness
nice
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Mon 11/03/08 07:59 PM |
|
QUOTE: Wouldn't you say that to want to be happy is to have known sadness.
Empiricism rears its ugly head! Dammit Bushi you are such a pain in the carpals!  
Ok, so if I use the example “I want <object>”, you’ll say that there must have been an observation of such an object (even if it were an imagined object) before there could be a desire for it.
So let’s take a different tack.
Loosely translated (in deference to Redy ) with Empiricism, the observer is gaining knowledge through sensory input.
Now, what is it that transforms “sensory input” into “knowledge”?
Where did the “sensory input = knowledge” idea come from?
I maintain that it is that “sensory input = knowledge” idea that is the rationalistic idea upon which all empirical thinking relies.
|
|
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Mon 11/03/08 08:00 PM
|
|
|
|
creativesoul
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 3086
|
| Mon 11/03/08 08:46 PM |
|
QUOTE: Now, what is it that transforms “sensory input” into “knowledge”?
In my humblest of opinions...
That transformation capability is contained within one's own personal sense of ought and/or perceptual faculty. The personal agreements within each of us determine whether a new piece of information is worthy of further contemplation... or not.
Inference and extrapolation(s) from previously accepted knowledge continually grows the personal tree of knowledge, which may or may not be an accurate representation of truth and/or fact. The unconscious also weighs heavily on one's own personal perceptual capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 7562
|
| Tue 11/04/08 12:30 AM |
|
QUOTE:
QUOTE: Now, what is it that transforms “sensory input” into “knowledge”?
In my humblest of opinions...
That transformation capability is contained within one's own personal sense of ought and/or perceptual faculty. The personal agreements within each of us determine whether a new piece of information is worthy of further contemplation... or not.
Inference and extrapolation(s) from previously accepted knowledge continually grows the personal tree of knowledge, which may or may not be an accurate representation of truth and/or fact. The unconscious also weighs heavily on one's own personal perceptual capabilities.
Creative,
How would you define this thing you call "personal sense of ought?"
And also, what is a "personal agreement within us?"
Are we agreeing "within" ourselves or with someone else?
|
|
Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 11/04/08 12:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 7562
|
| Tue 11/04/08 12:32 AM |
|
QUOTE:
Wouldn't you say that to want to be happy is to have known sadness.
Empiricism rears its ugly head!
Yes I would.
|
|
|
|
sethwyo
Joined Fri 02/22/08
Posts: 273
|
| Tue 11/04/08 12:36 AM |
A special person i met here directed me to a book
That is tittled Against happeness. In praise of melancholy. Being neither happy nor sad.
I call it yellow alert, being on the alert for trouble makes you aware of many things you wouldnt have picked up on. Like, when you are looking for the thorns, you get to smell the roses.
|
|
Edited by sethwyo on Tue 11/04/08 12:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 7562
|
| Tue 11/04/08 12:40 AM |
|
QUOTE:
A special person i met here directed me to a book
That is tittled Against happeness. In praise of melancholy. Being neither happy nor sad.
I call it yellow alert, being on the alert for trouble makes you aware of many things you wouldnt have picked up on. Like, when you are looking for the thorns, you get to smell the roses.
That sounds depressing.
Actually I do understand.
But I always feel that underlying divine JOY.
JOY! 
|
|
|
|
