Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Rationalism, empiricism or pragmatism

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 2:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which would you choose to defend, and argue for if you had to, or what do you most agree with?

I'm just curious since it's the topic of my final paper. I'll probably choose rationalism but possibly empiricism. Definitely not pragmatism though.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 8:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Coherence Theory of Truth, Correspondence Theory of Truth & The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

Any empirical experiences may not be applied widely without further justified reasonably, since mostly our justifications through empirical are the kind of induction and therefore we need deductive reasoning for completion.

Through deductive reasoning we can try to avoid from making conclusion incorrectly in between inductive understanding.

Pragmatism is useful to put us on proper condition that has benefit for us. It helps us to stay within reality practically that has usefulness for us. But applying pragmatism alone without empiricism and another typical of reasoning may put us on such inability to anticipate reality even wider, to attain possibilities even wider.

An important core of understanding in this case is that, "the more we have abilities the more we have better way to deal with something".

Both for rationalism or empiricism alone, it will lead us to "making incorrect conclusion" that typical on its own way. Because we live within reality and we need to understand reality for better adjustment, therefore we need both, rationalism & empiricism, to understand reality.

Pragmatism alone will lead us to act with less tolerance, in the sense that, it will put us far away from having "to be open minded". In the sense that, pragmatism can see rationalism and empiricism as an idealistic which can't be actualized personally since there is alternate solution which easier to be attained from pragmatism than what proposed by rationalism & empiricism. Saying that "believe in God" or meditating will lead us to prosperity, it will be denied by pragmatism, if this assertion ("believe in God") or meditating somehow difficult to be attained (difficult to be understood) and applying "believe in God" or meditating for prosperity or better understanding to reality, has difficult process for someone to be followed, compared to "just having a job currently has already put someone on prosperity without believe in God" or without meditating. In the sense that "prosperity" may be understood simpler based on beneficial (rather than trying to see possibilities by understanding "prosperity" from different point of view that may not be attained easily but it may give a better benefit than what proposed by pragmatism).

But maybe for pragmatism people will try to use rationalism or empiricism if somehow there is no pragmatism solution and vice versa.

But it's a personal choice, we may tend to use mostly to one of them. But, maybe when we are dealing with urgent situation, just maybe, we will adopt all of these to solve our problems.

I need empiricism as a closer to stable guidance on my life, and i need rationalism to further justify my possibilities, and further i need pragmatism to avoid myself from uselessness, but i can still be open minded.

Or, I need pragmatism to focus only to beneficial matters rather than focusing on uselessness, and i consider beneficial has possibilities as far as it can be provided as chances by rationalism & empiricism.

The point is: we need all of these to make a better, wider adjustment, wider chance to deal with reality.

Which would you choose to defend, and argue for if you had to, or what do you most agree with?

- Since we are dealing with different people, then i am using both, including pragmatism
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 9:03:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which would you choose to defend, and argue for if you had to, or what do you most agree with?

- Since we are dealing with different people, then i am using both, and pragmatism
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 9:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Rationalism And Empiricism are false dichotomies. Can pragmatism Is False.

The Argument of Ratio-Empiricism
We are continuously rationalizing and experiencing every moment your conscience. without rationalizing, we could not even reason about either or in the first place and without experiencing at least those two different intuitions we could not notice either or.

For consciousness is the necessary condition for experience. It would be most correct to say it is of experience, more particularly it supersedes all experience. For every particular experience is within a framework of consciousness never the other way around.

The fallacy arises, when people try to overgeneralize experience within a particular domain in which they have to be experiencing the different domains in the first place to even make a distinction, of whether or not there are particular types of experience.

For I call this, The Problem of the unconscious Empiricist.

The Argument Against Pragmatism

People, and I would argue life in general and as far as it is coherent only life acts out of intention, and insofar as we do something with intention it is always practical to that intention however, whether what you do achieves in relation to the intended goal is out of scope of this question.

Furthermore what is the most practical that is simply the most efficient most efficient way in reaching an intended goal. Depends on our knowledge of something, an intended goal is ultimately and always the Good in Itself.

Here's an example: Somebody who is a specialist in something can recognize many practicalities of what they are a master of. Thus in so far as they are, by virtue of what it means to know more about something, they will always Understand practicalities, that the rest cannot see.

Be careful my meaning is with precision, I don't mean the colloquial version "understand", in which, the Term "understand" is thrown about now as is the terms logic and knowledge truth or proof in any materialistic sense that the majority of people would use these "symbols". Haphazardly and inconsistent. I mean the original meaning which transcends from Standing Under, where to understand something more than somebody else is to be able to recognize what is more axiomatic to a particular subject. More precisely, the particulars in , of ,throughout and about a entity. Or at least that is a wondering Bodhisattva once told me in a dream of many dreams. But still an interesting dream I say. Take it for what it's worth.

<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 10:22:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know it's a false dichotomy. I'm being hypothetical, k.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)