Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Empiricists vs. Rationalists

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I choose epistemological anarchism.
praise the lord Chin Chin
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I would support an interplay between the two. Since truth is a mathematical concept, empiricism is fundamentally inadequate. Rationalism provides empiricism with a logical framework.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:27:18 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I choose epistemological anarchism.

Lol, that's amusing but an invalid response. I don't believe that was a philosophy at the time supported by either camp.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:05:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:55:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I would support an interplay between the two. Since truth is a mathematical concept, empiricism is fundamentally inadequate. Rationalism provides empiricism with a logical framework.

Would you have thought to marry the two at the time though? Seems like you would have beaten Kant to the punch had you been alive.

Look at this question as if you could only choose one side or the other. Which would you have favored? It seems like you would have been in the Rationalist camp.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true. Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 12:09:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true. Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.

That's a well-reasoned response :) Thanks for sharing your opinion!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:01:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably rationalism, just because empiricism seems absurd to me.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.
Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 10:43:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:01:20 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably rationalism, just because empiricism seems absurd to me.

That's interesting. Does empiricism seem absurd due to sensual fallibility or for another reason?

So far, it seems safe to say that DDO would generally prefer the rationalist camp.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:00:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 10:43:14 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:01:20 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably rationalism, just because empiricism seems absurd to me.

That's interesting. Does empiricism seem absurd due to sensual fallibility or for another reason?


Because it's really impossible to know if your senses are working. And in addition to that, it would seem that there some things like numbers, logical reasoning, etc. that do not come from senses.

However, while I think that the knowledge we know which does not come through our senses is more fundamental and certain, it really isn't complete without taking into account the knowledge we do get from our senses.

So far, it seems safe to say that DDO would generally prefer the rationalist camp.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:13:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:05:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:55:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I would support an interplay between the two. Since truth is a mathematical concept, empiricism is fundamentally inadequate. Rationalism provides empiricism with a logical framework.

Would you have thought to marry the two at the time though? Seems like you would have beaten Kant to the punch had you been alive.

Look at this question as if you could only choose one side or the other. Which would you have favored? It seems like you would have been in the Rationalist camp.

I'm primarily a rationalist, because again, truth is ultimately a mathematical concept. Logic and reason determine the form that empirical truth must assume.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:15:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the words of Chris Langan:

In theoretically (cognitively) connecting perceptual reality in an explanatory causal network, one can't always progress by short obvious steps; sometimes one must plunge into an ocean of non-testability in order to come up with a superior testable description on the far shore (think of this kind of insight as analogous to irreducible complexity, but often followed by a simplificative "refolding stage"). In other words, it is not always easy to distinguish (empirically fruitful) science from nonscience as science progresses; one must rely on logic and mathematics in the "blind spots" between islands of perceptibility.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I tend do be more a rationalist, there are times to speculate but not to the level of being blindly optimistic, so I can understand the empiricists need to be grounded in something more than just logic and reason. We make the judgments that we can with what we know and has allowed us to make predictions on the reality we expect to find with great accuracy and precision. Only with the knowledge we have could we ever even know what we are looking for and where to look.
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...
Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 8:08:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably, the side I choose now... neither. Sorry. I'm not a camper.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...

Something "self-evident" is analytically "true" in the same sense that "truth" is true. In other words, it's an extension of truth.

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:09:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:08:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...


Something "self-evident" is analytically "true" in the same sense that "truth" is true. In other words, it's an extension of truth.


Alright. So what statements are self-evident?

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:11:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:09:31 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:08:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...


Something "self-evident" is analytically "true" in the same sense that "truth" is true. In other words, it's an extension of truth.


Alright. So what statements are self-evident?


All logical tautologies.

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:11:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:09:31 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:08:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...


Something "self-evident" is analytically "true" in the same sense that "truth" is true. In other words, it's an extension of truth.


Alright. So what statements are self-evident?


All logical tautologies.


So how far can you get with that?

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:15:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:12:25 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:11:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:09:31 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:08:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 12:04:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 10:41:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:08:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:06:47 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 8:00:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:54:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

I agree with Dylancatlow. It's hard to choose one over the other. In the end, rationalist knowledge comes from reason, which, if done correctly, must be true.

Sure, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true, but how does one know for certain that the premises are true? It seems like rationalism runs into the same problems that empiricism does.


If we use deductive logic, then all conclusions would be based off of a number of self-evident axioms. And if the premises are true and the logic sound, the conclusion has to be true.

How far can you get with that? Also, who says what is a self-evident axiom?


That depends on your definition of "self-evident". But if your going to ask that, well then there goes logic...


Something "self-evident" is analytically "true" in the same sense that "truth" is true. In other words, it's an extension of truth.


Alright. So what statements are self-evident?


All logical tautologies.


So how far can you get with that?

Farther than you'd think, mainly due to the fact that reality is tautologically self-contained and therefore must possess certain characteristics as a condition of its self-contained existence.

Well some people think the PSR is self-evident, and other don't even believe in the law of non contradiction...

Empiricism is based off of the senses, which is fallible (although human reason is inevitably fallible as well). If pushed, I'd have to go with rationalism, but just because of sensual fallibility.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:46:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 8:08:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably, the side I choose now... neither. Sorry. I'm not a camper.

So what would have been the philosophy you agreed with if alive during that time?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:47:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:46:46 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:08:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably, the side I choose now... neither. Sorry. I'm not a camper.

So what would have been the philosophy you agreed with if alive during that time?

Probably Plato's.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:07:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:46:46 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/30/2014 8:08:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Probably, the side I choose now... neither. Sorry. I'm not a camper.

So what would have been the philosophy you agreed with if alive during that time?

My own. From here, I take a little; and from there, I take a little; and, I create myself. I am one, but I am many.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:25:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The skeptical Empiricism of Hume with pragmatic justifications as John Dewey explained :P
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 12:25:40 PM, mortsdor wrote:
The skeptical Empiricism of Hume with pragmatic justifications as John Dewey explained :P

Which is the same as what I would choose today.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 1:14:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:00:05 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were alive before Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, which side would you choose?

Neither.