R.C. Christian
Gold Member
Rationalism you mangy mutt.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but empiricism ignores anything that can't be seen, heard, tasted, felt, or smelled and that's an awful lot. If we relied only on empiricism, our knowledge base would be pretty small.The idea that reason guides us, or is a good guide. The trouble with that is where does reason come from and how and why. Can reason be unreasonable.
"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
Here you go. I found something that explains it in simple terms:
Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy
Rationalism or Empiricism?
No fence sitting, no third option.
Rationalism or Empiricism?
No fence sitting, no third option.
Rationalism and empiricism are the same thing.
Try again young grasshopper.
Rationalism or Empiricism?
No fence sitting, no third option.
Rationalism and empiricism are the same thing.
Try again young grasshopper.
I'm proud of you for reading some Kant, but as fundamental concepts they are distinct ontological approaches.
Rationalism and empiricism are the same thing.
Try again young grasshopper.
I'm proud of you for reading some Kant, but as fundamental concepts they are distinct ontological approaches.
Then you should find it easy to explain how empirical thought is irrational.
I am all ears.
I'm proud of you for reading some Kant, but as fundamental concepts they are distinct ontological approaches.
Then you should find it easy to explain how empirical thought is irrational.
I am all ears.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the terms in question. I posted this before, have a look:
Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy
Then you should find it easy to explain how empirical thought is irrational.
I am all ears.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the terms in question. I posted this before, have a look:
Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy
Your link confuses determinism with rationalism.
What is irrational about empirical thought?
Then you should find it easy to explain how empirical thought is irrational.
I am all ears.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the terms in question. I posted this before, have a look:
Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy
Your link confuses determinism with rationalism.
What is irrational about empirical thought?
You also seem to be misunderstanding the terms in question. I posted this before, have a look:
Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy
Your link confuses determinism with rationalism.
What is irrational about empirical thought?
You are misunderstanding the terms in question. Read the link more carefully.
Your link confuses determinism with rationalism.
What is irrational about empirical thought?
You are misunderstanding the terms in question. Read the link more carefully.
I have read the link carefully. It was written by philosophy amateurs if they equate determinism with rationalism.
You are misunderstanding the terms in question. Read the link more carefully.
I have read the link carefully. It was written by philosophy amateurs if they equate determinism with rationalism.
You really seem to be misunderstanding one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the Enlightenment.
I have read the link carefully. It was written by philosophy amateurs if they equate determinism with rationalism.
You really seem to be misunderstanding one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the Enlightenment.
Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.
Let's at least get the names of the teams right.
On a side note, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
You really seem to be misunderstanding one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the Enlightenment.
Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.
Let's at least get the names of the teams right.
On a side note, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken had to come first. Both if you believe religion or science. Scientifically there is no reason to believe that evolution would have created the first chicken by egg. That makes no sense.