The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fluer
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Fluer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,874 times Debate No: 20442
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

xxx200

Pro

i am pro. i will argue in favour of rationalism.

con will argu in favour of empiricism.

defination:

empiricism: knowledge starts from senses.

rationalism: knowledge starts from mind.

first round is acceptance.
Fluer

Con

I accept your debate but I would like to expand your definitions to philosophical definitions rather than simply dictionary definitions.
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.
http://www.mesacc.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

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.

Fluer

Con

We can only concentrate on an object if we can sense the object through touch, taste, sight, sound or smell. Even if your mind is "somewhere else" we can still have a knowledge of objects around us due to our senses. No animal is likely to survive very long if we cannot sense objects and therefore have a knowledge of they danger they present to us.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

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.

arguments:

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.




Fluer

Con

Dream state - we can only dream of things based on what we have sensed while awake. If we had not sensed it we would not dream it therefore knowledge starts with your senses.
"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.
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

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.
Fluer

Con

my point is how we see dreams when our senses are shut down"- as I said before we see dreams because they are a memory of something that has already been seen. Also your senses don't actually shut down as you put it they are still very active and still recording information. You would not have this knowledge if it was not for your senses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

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.
http://www.accessexcellence.org...
Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Pro

xxx200 forfeited this round.
Fluer

Con

Knowledge has to start with the senses.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
xxx200FluerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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