View Single Post
Unread 08-04-2014, 02:14 PM   #1453 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have some preliminary questions before I can accurately state my current position (which I may not be able to do, but we'll see.) Please be mindful that I have never taken a philosophy course and all of my philosophical education has come from books I have sought out or information on the internet. So I may ask some questions that might seem "dumb", but I ask them in all earnestness to learn more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post
Epistemology is broken into two main branches: Rationalism and Empiricism. In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge focusing on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. Rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".
I suppose my main question here, is about the terms "intellectual and deductive". Are these not, in some way, drawn from sensory and perceptual events themselves? What I mean is, in order to intellectualize or deduce anything, must it not draw from the original senses and perceptions that built the framework which allows for intellectualization and deduction? Is there such a thing as "pure" intellectualizing, "pure" deduction, severed from at least a primary sensory experience?


Quote:
Is the only way we can truly know things through sense experience or can we rely on our intellect to come to non-observable truths?
The Allegory of the Cave automatically casts doubt on sense experience for me, and I tend to be skeptical of the hubris of human interpretation of the universe these days. That being said, we don't really have a choice, except to use human interpretation at this point in history.

Also, can you give me an easy example of a non-observable truth that we can use intellect to deduce? I'm better at understanding concepts with concrete examples (when possible, of course).

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote