Are you an empiricist or a rationalist?

>>916195

im drunk

A mystic.
come at me bro

>>916195
Intuition is the basis.

>>916195
I'm actually an artist

>>916195

How does Empiricism link with us not being able to use our naked senses to see most of the cosmos? Our seemingly limited capacity to understand quantum physics?

Intuition does not work for that type of ''experiences''.

>>916217
this 2bh

>>916195
>implying either leads to complete knowlage
I just accept that there are limitations on human knowledge

Empiricism is illogical since it uses abduction, but logic is illogical as it can't be proven given that using logic to prove logic works would be assuming the answer in the inquiry, which is illogical. All you can do is show that logic works in a lot of scenarios, which is empirical abduction. So with that being said, I would definitely say I don't believe empiricism yields truth, but I would say it's a mentally unavoidable process. Not sure what I'd call myself.

The idea of a categorical imperative is BS though.

File: 1446839288651.png (36KB, 1765x532px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1765x532px

>>916195
>empiricist
any rationalist is destroyed by any empiricist.

>>916195
Read some LessWrong and you'll see that it's not a dichotomy.

File: 1458140251394.png (104KB, 1650x1122px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1650x1122px

>>916371
what you call empiricism is not empiricism.
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...


Empiricism does yield to certainty and clarity, irreversibility, but you must stop your mental proliferations beforehand, which means you must stop to take seriously what you think and feel. Once you do this, you cease to be hedonistic, therefore you cease to be a rationalist.

I don't know much about philosophy. Why does it have to be one or the other?

>>916760
Why cant empiricists discuss fallacies and bias?

File: Kant's thinking cap.jpg-large.jpg (216KB, 1024x990px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1024x990px

>>916777
Exactly

transcendental idealist

Skeptic desu

>>916867
Uncertainty presupposes certainty.

choosing to spend your day dwelling on the past to predict the future(because you are scared of it) is the most hedonistic activity that you can do.

>>916870
>>916870

In the same way athiesm presupposes God, at best it presupposes the possibility of certainty

>>916736
>advocating cult sites

Kill yourself

Idealist

>>916290
>How does Empiricism link with us not being able to use our naked senses to see most of the cosmos?
Because you cannot simply rationalize them from first principles. In one way or another, you must use instruments that aid your senses in detecting an external world.

>>916195
An empiricist, but only because it works, I make no judgement on whether or not its true

>>918024
>you must
nice personal opinion

Why pick only one? Why not combine. Use rationalism to made deductions, empiricism to test it.
>what is science

>>918101
This*1000^Grahams number.

>>918098
So then rationalize an actual universal law from first principles unaided by empirical experience.

>>918101
Thats exactly what empiricism is m8.

From the fat man himself

>“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Ernestine is right

>>916195
neither. i mean both!

File: 1459220385150.jpg (188KB, 568x791px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 568x791px

>>916219
I would but you are already my property and I just don't give a fuck. Not to mention egoist is just a mystic of another color.

Rationalist-scientists choose to dwell in the past to have a better future. Nothing more nihilistic than this.

>>921671
Rationalist-scientists choose to dwell in the past to have a better future. Nothing more nihilistic than this.

Can you give an example of a less nihilistic approach?

File: 2xcluster.jpg (1MB, 1914x1072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1914x1072px

>>916825
>>917999

What do you think is the most compelling argument (or arguments) in support of your position?

>>916195
Rationalists don't exist. All our reasoning other than abstract math, logic and other language games is grounded in sensory experience.

Even Kantian metaphysics start from our experience of space and time, which is grounded in our biological and sensory being.

File: george-berkeley.jpg (24KB, 620x377px)

24KB, 620x377px

>>922582
>Shiggy