Empiricism vs. Rationalism

[Herr Abubu]

Which one are you?

Empiricism is the epistemological theory that knowledge comes only or primarily from the senses. The corollary belief to this is that the mind is a blank slate, tabula rasa, that is completely formed by experience. This means that our minds can be formed like putty to behave, believe, etc. in all sorts of way according to whatever sensory stimuli we experience.

Rationalism, on the other hand, is the epistemological theory that reason is the chief source and test of knowledge. The corollary belief to this is that there is innate knowledge, we are born with forms of knowledge and we are restricted by this. Chomsky's linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, is a rationalist concept. According to Chomsky, our brains are hard-wired with grammatical structures.

[Scholarios]

I am a rationalist with reservations. The limits with which we are born with are extremely upper-bounded...and in some instances are practically limitless. Rational determinism has its flaws, but its the closest we can get to defining "human nature".. if one considers such a concept as useful.

[Selurong]

Which one are you?

Empiricism is the epistemological theory that knowledge comes only or primarily from the senses. The corollary belief to this is that the mind is a blank slate, tabula rasa, that is completely formed by experience. This means that our minds can be formed like putty to behave, believe, etc. in all sorts of way according to whatever sensory stimuli we experience.

Rationalism, on the other hand, is the epistemological theory that reason is the chief source and test of knowledge. The corollary belief to this is that there is innate knowledge, we are born with forms of knowledge and we are restricted by this. Chomsky's linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, is a rationalistic concept. According to Chomsky, our brains are hard-wired with grammatical structures.

A rationalist that uses empiricism only as a tool of verification but isn't the foundation of my philosophical world-view. Empiricism cannot explain abstract things. Empiricism cannot explain things such at the symmetry of math, the presence of sentience and etc.

How the freaking hell can you empirically explain the concept of zero or relations between string particles found in another dimension of reality when you can't even sense them? But the mere fact that is shows in scientists' deductions of reality, means that such things exist, just, it's beyond the reach of empiricism.

Also, your senses can fool you. Elaborate lying, trick of the hand, optical illusions and etc. Can easily bring the sole empirical world-view unto naught.

Also, as a Christian, a scholastic is a moderate-rationalist as defined by Thomas Aquinas. So rationalist in essence but still allowing use of empiricism in scenarios where it is needed.

[Selurong]

I am a rationalist with reservations. The limits with which we are born with are extremely upper-bounded...and in some instances are practically limitless. Rational determinism has its flaws, but its the closest we can get to defining "human nature".. if one considers such a concept as useful.

Plus, being a pure empiricist, basing all things on mere sense-perception would have a you fooled. If one simply depended on sense rather than reason, then optical illusions, trickery or altered states of consciousness (which would form phantasia) would hang you by the ankles every second of the day and render you powerless. Unless you have the light of reason, logic and the LOGOS by your side.

Reason still trumps mere sense measurement (Empiricism).

[Herr Abubu]

I think it is also worth mentioning that empiricism is a self-refuting idea. The proposition that all knowledge stems from our senses would contradict itself if it were true, meaning it necessarily can't be true, since this proposition itself is a priori and empirically unverifiable.

[Selurong]

I think it is also worth mentioning that empiricism is a self-refuting idea. The proposition that all knowledge stems from our senses would contradict itself if it were true, meaning it necessarily can't be true, since this proposition itself is a priori and empirically unverifiable.

Although ultimately, empiricism would not stand scrutiny epistimologically or simply logically, it is still a useful methodology when one applies to the experimental sciences.

[Herr Abubu]

It's interesting that so many see themselves as rationalists here. Today it is positivism that permeates western thinking. I guess this means the good people of TA are a nobler creed than the rabble that makes up the majority of society and especially the current elites. :thumb001:

[Comte Arnau]

I attach great importance to how the entities perceived by us through our senses influence the reasoning of our experiences, but I'm at least in theory more of a rationalist. After all, even with limited experience of stimuli, we are able to reason and draw conclusions such as doubting about what we actually perceive.