|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:07 pm
Okay, so I have to do a paper for my philosophy class. Quote: Two general positions have been taken thus far on the mind/body problem: the rationalist (e.g. Plato and Descartes) and the empiricist (e.g. Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Berkeley). Which is the best position? Why? I can see both sides, but I'm leaning more towards empiricism. What are your thoughts? Ideally, you should have some background knowledge on the two positions of philosophy, but to refresh your memory or give you a basic idea of it: Quote: According to Rationalists (such as Descartes), all knowledge must come from the mind. Rationalism is concerned with absolute truths that are universal (such as logic and mathematics), which is one of the strengths of this position. It’s weakness lies in the fact that it is difficult to apply rationalism to particulars (which are everywhere in our daily life!) because it is of such an abstract nature. According to Empiricists, such as John Locke, all knowledge comes from direct sense experience. Locke’s concept of knowledge comes from his belief that the mind is a “blank slate or tabula rosa” at birth, and our experiences are written upon the slate. Therefore, there are no innate experiences. The strength of the empiricist position is that it is best at explaining particulars, which we encounter on a daily basis. The weakness of this position is that one cannot have direct experiences of general concepts, since we only experience particulars. .
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:13 pm
Hmmm, is there a "s**t happens" option? surprised
I guess my stance would be that the mind is a collection of experiences and from those experiences we are able to solve problems as well as create knowledge, and this creates more experiences thus creating more knowledge.
If that makes sense tell me. ¬3¬
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:56 pm
They're both incorrect.
Oh for philosophers to actually study a science before thinking about things D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:00 pm
"innate experiences."
We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'.
We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't.
We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do.
Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:05 pm
Valheita They're both incorrect. Oh for philosophers to actually study a science before thinking about things D: Bish plz, science is founded on philosophy and philosophy is founded on science. talk2hand In my opinion, philosophy is floofy and unnecessary, but I have to take it. And I have to do this paper. So please, only focus on empiricism or rationalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:06 pm
Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:09 pm
CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned. Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:17 pm
CleoSombra In my opinion, philosophy is floofy and unnecessary, but I have to take it. And I have to do this paper. So please, only focus on empiricism or rationalism. Rationalism. Empiricism fails to account for innate knowledge such as instincts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:22 pm
Valheita CleoSombra In my opinion, philosophy is floofy and unnecessary, but I have to take it. And I have to do this paper. So please, only focus on empiricism or rationalism. Rationalism. Empiricism fails to account for innate knowledge such as instincts. Rationalism is not about innate knowledge. It's about gaining knowledge through thought. Plato had the belief that all thoughts were innate - that's sort of considered innatism or nativism. Rationalism and empiricism have to do with the gaining and development of knowledge, not the knowledge we are born with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:25 pm
Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned. Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes. Forgetting that reflexes/instincts are innate knowledge and not part of rationalism or empiricism, when does something go wrong? Or how do we know when something has gone wrong? If instincts are memories of what went wrong, that means something bad had to have occured. Some caveman had to stick his hand in the fire. Which would be learning from experience/senses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:19 pm
CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned. Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes. Forgetting that reflexes/instincts are innate knowledge and not part of rationalism or empiricism, when does something go wrong? Or how do we know when something has gone wrong? If instincts are memories of what went wrong, that means something bad had to have occured. Some caveman had to stick his hand in the fire. Which would be learning from experience/senses. Yeah. Them Empiricists might be right about..... Say, single celled organisms. But that's a rather pointless battle. The psychology of single celled organisms...... Well, single celled organisms that aren't midichlorians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:23 pm
Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned. Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes. Forgetting that reflexes/instincts are innate knowledge and not part of rationalism or empiricism, when does something go wrong? Or how do we know when something has gone wrong? If instincts are memories of what went wrong, that means something bad had to have occured. Some caveman had to stick his hand in the fire. Which would be learning from experience/senses. Yeah. Them Empiricists might be right about..... Say, single celled organisms. But that's a rather pointless battle. The psychology of single celled organisms...... Well, single celled organisms that aren't midichlorians. Erm, you're not making any point, claim, or argument. . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:27 pm
CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence "innate experiences." We've never experienced losing our hands when it's on fire, yet we still draw it back when we feel the burn. Seems 'innate'. We don't jump off of cliffs. We've never been splattered on the base of one, but...... We still don't. We breathe. We've never died because we didn't but.... We do. Imma gonna have to say rationalism. We may be a blank slate at birth, but that slate is still made out of stone. Fire could be considered instict. Evolution. Even animals back away when you wave fire at them. Breathing is a reflex - it's not voluntary or learned. Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes. Forgetting that reflexes/instincts are innate knowledge and not part of rationalism or empiricism, when does something go wrong? Or how do we know when something has gone wrong? If instincts are memories of what went wrong, that means something bad had to have occured. Some caveman had to stick his hand in the fire. Which would be learning from experience/senses. Yeah. Them Empiricists might be right about..... Say, single celled organisms. But that's a rather pointless battle. The psychology of single celled organisms...... Well, single celled organisms that aren't midichlorians. Erm, you're not making any point, claim, or argument. . . . I'm just saying that they're completely right. When looking at the basic life forms. Or possibly just those that existed before nerve tissue came into play. But anything past that point, however, it too complex for such simple thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:32 pm
Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence CleoSombra Divine_Malevolence Instinct. The species' memories of what goes wrong. Same with reflexes. Forgetting that reflexes/instincts are innate knowledge and not part of rationalism or empiricism, when does something go wrong? Or how do we know when something has gone wrong? If instincts are memories of what went wrong, that means something bad had to have occured. Some caveman had to stick his hand in the fire. Which would be learning from experience/senses. Yeah. Them Empiricists might be right about..... Say, single celled organisms. But that's a rather pointless battle. The psychology of single celled organisms...... Well, single celled organisms that aren't midichlorians. Erm, you're not making any point, claim, or argument. . . . I'm just saying that they're completely right. When looking at the basic life forms. Or possibly just those that existed before nerve tissue came into play. But anything past that point, however, it too complex for such simple thinking. Erm. I think you're really missing the point of this discussion. This thread's really only for people who know about the two positions. e.e Empiricism and rationalism investigate how we gain or learn knowledge. Some plants' are covered in a liquid that tastes bad to those who eat it to help them survive. This way, an herbivore takes a bite, doesn't like it, so the animal doesn't take another bite, and the plant survives. You have to stick it in your mouth to know whether it's edible or not. Can we have an idea about what a stomach ache is like if we never experience one or see someone experience one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:51 pm
CleoSombra Valheita CleoSombra In my opinion, philosophy is floofy and unnecessary, but I have to take it. And I have to do this paper. So please, only focus on empiricism or rationalism. Rationalism. Empiricism fails to account for innate knowledge such as instincts. Rationalism is not about innate knowledge. It's about gaining knowledge through thought. Plato had the belief that all thoughts were innate - that's sort of considered innatism or nativism. Rationalism and empiricism have to do with the gaining and development of knowledge, not the knowledge we are born with. Uh huh, see the "blank slate" comment confused me. @Stomach Ache: How close an idea? I've a fair grasp of a heart attack, but I've never seen it or... had one >.<;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
