are you a rationalist or an empiricist?

Watch
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I'm the only rationalist I know
2
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
What do does two words mean ?
2
reply
Emilia1320
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Rationalist. Only one I know lol.
2
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Emilia1320)
Rationalist. Only one I know lol.
:five: can we be rationalist friends pls :lol:
0
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Kadak)
What do does two words mean ?
umm, I could explain it if you want? haha
0
reply
Pewdie3.14
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Empiricist.
1
reply
GrimSower
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Neither

EDIT: Or both?
2
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by picklescamp)
umm, I could explain it if you want? haha
Yes please.
0
reply
Emilia1320
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by picklescamp)
:five: can we be rationalist friends pls :lol:
Yes! Gladly
0
reply
RobML
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Reason is a product of experience

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
flamboy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
both - I'm an empiricist because I'm a rationalist
1
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Both. Reason is sufficient with regards to subjects that do not talk explictly about properties of the world themselves such as mathematics, logic and ethics as well as the axioms of physics and economics (are there are other subjects that are reliant on axioms that are not derived from elsewhere? Not sure). Everything else I'm an empiricist towards.
2
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Kadak)
Yes please.
Ok, so rationalists believe that all we can know is based on tautologies; things that are by definition true (inconceivably false and cannot be denied without contradiction)- so for example you couldn't say maths (2+2=4) is false; you couldn't deny that without it leading to a logical contradiction- so we can safely know that 2+2=4 and can base our knowledge on this.

empiricists think that what we can see and hear and touch and taste is what is really there, and that our perceptions are accurate reflections of it. Truth, for an empiricist, is based on evidence. We come into the world as mental blank slates and experience builds on this to help form knowledge- so we cannot empirically experience God so therefore God is a meaningless concept (as is causation and the self). So we can only build knowledge on what we experience with our senses.
Hope this is ok, I'm out of practice and ad libbed a bit..


(Original post by Emilia1320)
Yes! Gladly
:woo:


(Original post by RobML)
Reason is a product of experience

Posted from TSR Mobile
you think? How then would you respond to Plato's slave boy experiment which would suggest it's innate?
0
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by flamboy)
both - I'm an empiricist because I'm a rationalist
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
Both. Reason is sufficient with regards to subjects that do not talk explictly about properties of the world themselves such as mathematics, logic and ethics as well as the axioms of physics and economics (are there are other subjects that are reliant on axioms that are not derived from elsewhere? Not sure). Everything else I'm an empiricist towards.
I think that's fair Rationalism is often incorrectly contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist. However I'd say I'm a hyper-rationalist, and my views do clash somewhat with empiricism...
0
reply
RobML
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by picklescamp)
you think? How then would you respond to Plato's slave boy experiment which would suggest it's innate?
Can you remind me of the what that is? :mmm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by RobML)
Can you remind me of the what that is? :mmm:Posted from TSR Mobile

sure
(this is copied and pasted btw- my mathematical language isn't up to scratch)

'To show what he means, Socrates calls over one of Meno’s slave boys, draws a square with sides of two feet, and asks the boy to calculate how long the side of a square would be if it had twice the area of the one he just drew. The boy suggests four feet and then three feet, and Socrates proves him wrong both times. Socrates then helps the boy recognize that a square of twice the area would have sides with a length equal to the diagonal of the present square—but Socrates leads the boy to this point without actually explaining anything, instead forcing the boy to think the problem through himself. Since the boy reached this conclusion (more or less) on his own without any direct teaching, he must have been recollecting something he already knew.'

Plato uses this to argue that reason (or at least mathematical reason) is innate
0
reply
GrimSower
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by picklescamp)
sure
(this is copied and pasted btw- my mathematical language isn't up to scratch)

'To show what he means, Socrates calls over one of Meno’s slave boys, draws a square with sides of two feet, and asks the boy to calculate how long the side of a square would be if it had twice the area of the one he just drew. The boy suggests four feet and then three feet, and Socrates proves him wrong both times. Socrates then helps the boy recognize that a square of twice the area would have sides with a length equal to the diagonal of the present square—but Socrates leads the boy to this point without actually explaining anything, instead forcing the boy to think the problem through himself. Since the boy reached this conclusion (more or less) on his own without any direct teaching, he must have been recollecting something he already knew.'

Plato uses this to argue that reason (or at least mathematical reason) is innate
The boy worked it out because he had visualized the problem (using his senses) and then made a deduction so surely that's both.
0
reply
RobML
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by picklescamp)
Plato uses this to argue that reason (or at least mathematical reason) is innate
I'm of the opinion that reason is learned :dontknow:
With maths, we observe quantity in the world (as if it is a vast and complex abacus) and build an intuition of it.
Just to illustrate what I think, imagine someone who's been fully comatose since their conception but suddenly comes around to consciousness one day. I'd say that all sensual input would be a indecipherable white noise, but as time passes they'd gradually begin to pick out patterns and begin to make sense of all that noise, to the point they build an intuitive understanding of things and the relationships between them. Kind of like new born babies can make little sense of their vision.






Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by GrimSower)
The boy worked it out because he had visualized the problem (using his senses) and then made a deduction so surely that's both.
Hmm, yes I suppose he did see it with his senses. But as far as I see it he used pure innate mathematical reason to work the answer out.
0
reply
picklescamp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by RobML)
I'm of the opinion that reason is learned :dontknow:
With maths, we observe quantity in the world (as if it is a vast and complex abacus) and build an intuition of it.
Just to illustrate what I think, imagine someone who's been fully comatose since their conception but suddenly comes around to consciousness one day. I'd say that all sensual input would be a indecipherable white noise, but as time passes they'd gradually begin to pick out patterns and begin to make sense of all that noise, to the point they build an intuitive understanding of things and the relationships between them. Kind of like new born babies can make little sense of their vision.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Do you agree with Kant's innate framework? I think it's the main reason why I could never agree that reason is learned. If we didn't have any innate reason or way to interpret or decipher what our senses tell us the world would be a confusing mess. So we at least need some innate reason, no?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (176)
14.53%
I'm not sure (56)
4.62%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (354)
29.23%
I have already dropped out (35)
2.89%
I'm not a current university student (590)
48.72%

Watched Threads

View All