Thread: theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism.

definition:

empiricism: knowledge starts from senses.

rationalism: knowledge starts from mind.


i think rationalism is better than empiricism because our senses can be deceived in case of sensory illusions and mirage in desert area.

another reason is that when we focus our mind(concentration) into an object, only then we can know the object.

what do you think?

I think that there is a huge body of literature on exactly this topic.

You might do better to read a couple of the better known writers in the area and see whether their arguments are persuasive or not.

Gnostism, right? I mean when someone says, "I think such and such", that's self-knowledge, right?


The better works to study on psychology can be found in the standard reading list of a psychology degree, right?

simply empirically observing the sun rise a thousand times is not sufficient to know that it will rise the next day.

knowing beyond a reasonable doubt requires that we be able to know how 'reasonable' a doubt is.

this is what rationalism is about.
knowing the reasons why things happen and knowing whether something is unreasonable.

In defense of both i will quote a zen koan:

Before a person studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters;
after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are not waters;
after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.

I think the problem is already in the title of the thread in "empiricism vs rationalism".
I think both, empiricism and rationalism, must work together complementing each other to find right conclusions (truths).

empiricism cannot be the source of knowledge because OUR SENSES CAN BE DECEIVED. did not you hear of sensory illusions? empiricism does not make sense.

rationalism says that mind is the source of knowledge which is true. our mind cannot be deceived so easily because we decode sensory illusions with the help of our thinking ability taking place in mind.


well then, they say that there is mind-control mechanism.....

this is pure gossip and has no sound base.

well how do we know something which we cannot see or experience or sense?

what about fantasy ? our fantasy is such that it never takes place in reality. it is all in our mind. but still we know our fantasy without experiencing it in real world.

so the conclusion: knowledge comes from mind. rationalism is the way.

so the conclusion: knowledge comes from mind. rationalism is the way.

avatar22132_1[1].jpg
Your avatar says it all...

Originally Posted by xxx200

empiricism cannot be the source of knowledge because OUR SENSES CAN BE DECEIVED. did not you hear of sensory illusions? empiricism does not make sense.

rationalism says that mind is the source of knowledge which is true. our mind cannot be deceived so easily because we decode sensory illusions with the help of our thinking ability taking place in mind.

But you mind can be deceived as well. So rationalism cannot work either. You should give up all hope of ever knowing anything.

how our mind can be deceived? please give us example.

our perception can be deceived if we have false ideas. but perception is not our mind. perceptions are ideas previously installed in us.

for example: muslims are indoctrinated that eating pigs are bad. so whenever they saw a pig, they will perceive it bad. but this is not reality because none other than muslim perceive pig is bad.

Originally Posted by martillo

so the conclusion: knowledge comes from mind. rationalism is the way.

avatar22132_1[1].jpg
Your avatar says it all...

this will be future science. please wait.

Originally Posted by xxx200

how our mind can be deceived? please give us example.

Really?

Most optical illusion take place in the mind, not the senses.
What about false memories? Or dreams?
What about people who have hallucinations or delusions?

But it sounds like you are just going to say that any false ideas in the mind are "perceptions".

yes false ideas are perception.

i think all illusions are categorized on the basis of senses. i have never heard of something called mental illusion. besides Wikipedia also says that illusion is a distortion of senses. you better read it:
Illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so illusion is a distortion of sense and not mind. so is hallucinations or delusions.

false memory and dreams or fantasy are my point. there are 2 common things among them.

1] all of them never happened in reality.

2] we see all of them as vividly as if we see them in reality.

so, if these things we do not experience through senses then where from they come? the answer they come from mind itself. so knowledge can start from mind.

but all these are false knowledge........

who said that? many big invention comes from these imagination/fantasy/dream. if they are false, then those inventions must have been false. but they are not.

this is the only way we can change the world. our senses are useless. they never tell us truth. they are prone to illusion. but our mind is not unless clouded with false ideas called perception.

Originally Posted by xxx200

they never tell us truth

That is just wrong. If your eyes never told you the truth you would not be able to have this conversation.

You may occasionally see something that isn't there, or be unable to identify something, or misread something but generally our senses are pretty good and tell us a lot about the world.

No one designed your computer and the Internet just by thinking about it. Real, useful knowledge is largely empirical, supported by rationalism.

Come on xxx200, how could you rationalize if you don't see or hear anything?
You know, I deeply believe in rationalism but over things we perceive someway. You can't rationalize over emptyness.
As I said rationalism and empiricism must work together, enriching each other, to reach right conclusions, statements, etc which would improve our knowledge about everything.
In other words, we can't make some rationalism without any empiricism and we can't make some empiricism without some rationalism.

I think the empiricist is less confused than the rationalist. True our mind is the seat of reason. But it is also incomplete without the senses and is full of biases. We cannot think clearly and are confused. Our mind tries to "See" what our senses cannot by reason. How much this is possible is doubtful. Again it is the senses that will affirm whether the rational mind has reached the right conclusions. I empiricism there is less doubt.