Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism.

  1. #1 theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism. 
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    5
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    so the conclusion: knowledge comes from mind. rationalism is the way.
    avatar22132_1[1].jpg
    Your avatar says it all...
    Last edited by martillo; January 25th, 2012 at 01:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    111
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. basic of knowledge
    By allenyuang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 5th, 2010, 11:16 PM
  2. Ability to describe knowledge = knowledge?
    By DivideByZero in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 28th, 2009, 05:48 AM
  3. how sure is knowledge?
    By Pendragon in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 12:46 PM
  4. Knowledge
    By maximg in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 24th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •