theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism
Debate Rounds (5)
i am pro. i will argue in favour of rationalism.
con will argu in favour of empiricism.
empiricism: knowledge starts from senses.
rationalism: knowledge starts from mind.
first round is acceptance.
Empiricists share the view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, and that instead knowledge is derived from experience (either sensed via the five senses or reasoned via the brain or mind).
Rationalists share the view that there is innate knowledge; they differ in that they choose different objects of innate knowledge.
ok. but unless we put our mind upon an object i.e. concentrate on an object, we cannot know the object.
for example: there is a phenomenon called absent-mindedness where one cannot know an object because his mind was somewhere else.
besides our perception about an object closely depends on nature of our mind.the best example is perception of beauty. what one consider beautiful, another may not consider that.
so first comes the mind, then comes the knowledge. thats why rationalism is the source of knowledge.
Our perception of an object does depend on the nature of the mind but we can only perceive the object once we have identified that it is there through our senses.
I pose a question to you. Would we know what beauty was if we could not identify an object through our senses?
You have to sense an object before your mind can make any perceptions about it.
1] We can only concentrate on an object if we can sense the object through touch, taste, sight, sound or smell.
ok but what about dream state? we cannot sense an object in dream because all senses are shut down before sleep.we can "see" dream in mind's eye.
2] Even if your mind is "somewhere else" we can still have a knowledge of objects around us due to our senses.
suppose you stand before a picture and think deeply about a movie that has no relation with that picture. could you see the picture that is in front of you?
please be honest.
3]I pose a question to you. Would we know what beauty was if we could not identify an object through our senses?
i know a beautiful woman who only exists in my fantasy and not in the real world.
we can feel objects in our dream where none of our senses are present because
senses are shut down before sleep. how could we still feel objects? we feel object through our mind.
knowledge starts with mind.
"could you see the picture that is in front of you?" - I will be honest. Physics determines that there is still a light source whose photons still travel to the painting and the "right" wavelengths of photons get reflected back to our eyes which detect them and send a signal to our brain. If another part of the brain is active enough it will mask the effect. Therefore we still see the painting even if our mind is not fully aware of it at that moment.
"I know a beautiful woman who only exists in my fantasy and not in the real world." Ignoring the fact you should probably go get a girlfriend, you are still creating this "perfect" woman based on what you believe to be beautiful from the women you have already seen.
Dream - as I said before we can only dream of things based on what we have perceived in real life. These dreams are recurrence of the memory of sensing an object when we were awake. It only appears to be real because it was based on something that at one time was real.
Knowledge has to start with our senses.
1] my point is how we see dreams when our senses are shut down.
for example: you see a dog while awake with your senses. fine. now you see the same dog in dream state without your senses. now here is the point: knowledge can arise without senses.
2] "could you see the picture that is in front of you?" - I will be honest. Physics determines that there is still a light source whose photons still travel to the painting and the "right" wavelengths of photons get reflected back to our eyes which detect them and send a signal to our brain. If another part of the brain is active enough it will mask the effect. Therefore we still see the painting even if our mind is not fully aware of it at that moment.
do you believe this photon nonsense ? if this nonsense is true, then we are seeing ghosts, gods, spirits and all kinds of unimaginable creatures, even though our mind is not fully aware of them.
I do believe it because it is a proven scientific fact and I am studying physics at university so I know a rather lot about it. As for your mythical creatures I'll keep an open mind we could be but I doubt it simply because there is not a lot of evidence to support this theory. My point still stands. We still see the painting. It still gets registered by our brain.
All knowledge has to come from the senses.
xxx200 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides didn't make elaborate arguments but Pro's arguments proved far weaker. While a direct link between visualization and knowledge was not provided, Con's point was effectively proven by Pro. Pro's contention in regards to the bereavement of our senses proved useless when Con notes, rather convincingly, that our fantasies, dreams, and even notions are derived from our senses. Pro battled weakly to the point that Con repeated his contentions and his forfeit gave Con an overall victor
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.