/lit/ - Literature

>>15330451
rationalism won the argument and lost the world

>>15330451
it...... didnt. It was semi-synthesized into German idealism, and partially due to that it got largely consumed by the movement. so to did impericism to some extent, but the empericists seem to last longer because it was the form most often employed in the increasingly developing scientific fields.

>>15330756

I am neither praising nor criticizing the content of your ideas. I am simply strongly encouraging you to learn how to spell empiricism, since you want to discuss modern philosophy in writing.

>>15330786
Sorry, dyslexia. not good when typing fast.

>>15330794

Oh okay, no worries then. No problem.

>>15330451
I don’t understand why these two sides are pitted against each other. I’ve read the three on the left and none of them seem concerned to refute empiricism. Also Hume btfo’d all knowledge so his “empiricism” is just an early form of pragmatism.

>>15330451
>descartes spinoza and leibniz are on a team
what the fuck

>>15330817
I put Hercules and Achilles on the same team and they usually win.

>>15330451
Rationalism gets narrated against in certain academic spheres, but it's just a narrative. Empiricists and Rationalists all exist in a long chain of refutation between one another. I'm just here laughing over the fact that any Kantian every tried to claim him as an empiricist

>>15330817
I mean yeah, that's conventionally understood as a thread of philosophy

>>15330817
they look cool

>>15330451
it still lives on in math and theoretical physics. and in terms of law i would say that constitutional/human/fundamental rights are a rationalist heritage (even if it comes from locke, he is quite rationalist in his ethics)

>>15330451
Botj rationalism and empiricism got BTFO for different reason
When it comes to rationalism, there's the simple fact that you develop your sense or ego, speech etc. through interacting with others - individuals aren't closed-off systems. There's also neurology which is on the side of empiricism.

>>15330451
on the left, two of the greatest scientists to ever exist. on the right a bunch of homosexual essayists.
that alone should give you a hint about the forces at play.

>>15330756
-- rationalism = everything is non-contradictory, if phenomena look so, there is something wrong in our perception of them, also, if a logical deduction is correct, it doesn't need to be confirmed by phenomena
-- fichtean idealism = everything is subjective, including logic and phenomena. truth is decided by the creative ego.
-- hegelian idealism: everything is "rational" , but "rational" doesn't mean non-contradictory, as in rationalism, but rather observing the "laws" of his dialectical "logic". that is = fichtean idealism.

rationalism is a french thing (leibniz wrote in french and lived in the frech cultural milieu)
idealism is pure, romantic irrationalism and it's a german thing.
learn the difference.

Quantum physics destroyed empiricism.

>>15330451
Post yfw you realize Berkeley was right

>>15332381
elaborate

>>15330451
Descartes, Rene. Dislike him intensely. A wen on the arse of philosophy who stated shit out of his ass and refused to provide arguments for them. Complete intellectual dishonesty.
Hume, David. The finest philosopher before Wittgenstein. His Enquiries are universally regarded as masterpieces.

>>15332381
How is not just an extension of it?

>>15330451
Let's be real, this turban-wearing Scot utterly BTFO rationalism

>>15333192
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

Sean Carroll tried to cope by saying "ackshually, it just says that any one observer cannot see all of reality, even in principle". Which just means no one can claim that materialism/physicalism is true on an empirical basis (since it is impossible to observe all of reality, no matter how much scientific progress is made).

This puts moderns on the tricky situation of having to either reject empiricism or reject materialism. Neither bodes well for the rationalistic, technocratic oligarchy.

>>15330451
>dark hair vs light wigs
For me it’s dark hair

>>15333532
What other option is there if we discard empiricism?

>>15332381
>>15333532
You can't just say it destroyed empiricism what it is showing is that there are workings of the universe far beyond our perception and probably our ability to percieve at the moment. Empiricism very much does work for many domains though anon and you know it, much like classical mechanics 100% works when building a car.

>>15333720
Mysticism. Spirituality. Religion. Idealism. Perhaps you prefer discarding materialism, but that plainly just leads to the same place.

>>15333867
> at the moment
Forever, is the claim.

> Empiricism does work for many domains
Yep, but that does not mean it provides access to the whole of truth. There are other quite blatant examples, such as Daniel Dennet claiming there's no such thing as consciousness because it is not empirically observable (like God). And he's right! There is no evidence anyone or anything is sentient. But of course, it is sheer absurdity to side with empiricism in this dispute.

I'm reading The God Delusion right now, and it occurs to me that perhaps some daredevil will write The Human Delusion one day, based off it. The arguments arrayed against the existence of God (the ground of all being) work just as well arguing against the existence of human beings.

>>15334436
I'd easily go for what you mentioned, but I can't discard materialism due to obvious importance of the brain, e.g. if a specific region is damaged the person can't move anymore or loses the ability to hear.

>>15335389
Mysticism and spirituality often emphasizes going with the flow, such as seeing yourself as choiceless awareness, in the Ashtavakra Gita, or needing the grace of God to pierce the Cloud of Unknowing. In short, they advise against identifying with the body. It's not the mechanics of the brain that are ineffable, it's the existence of sentience that is the mystery.

It's good to read the Ashtavakra Gita keeping in mind the conclusion of science that freewill is impossible. Or perhaps you would enjoy Dostoevsky's The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, for its vision of a semi-pantheistic spirituality.

>>15330786
you're a moron seriously

>>15336446
I didn't say that the mechanics of the brain are ineffable, it's that they play a part in our sentience.
>Dostoevsky
My favorite author actually, I've read almost every work of his.

>>15330451
Plato

>>15330451
two competing subjectivities, one the end of the aristocratic age the other the first liberals