The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
I recently found this channel and I’m really liking the approach you take to educating people on philosophy. The dialogue you use as a pedagogical model is similar to what Plato did in a lot of his writings.
I don't understand how hobbies and interests could be an example of Rationalsim, are you saying they can't be learned? If that were true, then every tribe would be vastly different individuals. My dad likes football, so I grew up watching football, so now I like football. I wasn't born with a prior knowledge of football, there's no way to prove that football was even real in a past life, so how can I rationally say that I was born with an interest in football? That doesn't really make sense to me, maybe I'm wrong? Idk what do you think?
Because almost all of them don't know about epistemology and what is above science and the other ways to gain knowledge. They know nothing but "science" which is "empirical science".
Could you please explain how an empiricist would differ in their beliefs to those which were explained in the video? I'm just starting to question the difference between rationality and empiricism so I don't want a straw man of either side to cloud my judgement
@@BMTroubleU I respect your caution about not making a misjudgment. To make stuff clear instantly, remind yourself that we are talking about PURE empiricism vs PURE rationalism. Both alone are flawed and make our intellect limited. How? Well, pure empiricism disregards everything that we do not experience with our 5 senses as empty talk. The problem with pure empiricism is that if we apply it alone, we would have to let go of a big portion of math for most of it cannot be proven via our senses. Example: we know that if u move with numbers 2 by 2,every number u land on is divisible by 2, but can we prove it? Can we experiment it on ALL numbers? No, but it is true. Another example is the form/shape of atoms, which is something nobody witnessed, but we know roughly how they look. Light's speed is immeasurable, the speed of light we know isnt the speed of light going from A to B, but from A to B and back to A. (u can check that btw, most ppl dont know that). Nobody saw electrons move in wires to creare electricity, nobody saw gravity etc. For example some say that they wont believe in god unless they can see it, and that is flawed because based on that concept, u cant believe in the existence of atoms, gravity, electricity, and not even ur great grandfather, because u never saw these. Through pure empiricism we cannot know any of these and a lot more significant stuff. Pure rationalism is based on logic and and the mind. It is what gives birth to math as we know it today, it is the logic u use to add 2 infos together to get to a third info. Example: stuff fall on the ground. So something is either pushing them to the ground or the ground pulling them to it. When we get further from the ground (via rockets) we escape this power and so we know that there isnt something pushing us to the ground but the ground itself pulling us to it. Then we called that gravity. Through pure empiricism, this is nonsense, for yes u saw the consequence of it (the fall) but not the reason or gravity itself nor the thing in the earth pulling us, but rationally u can conclude all these stuff. So both schools ON THEIR OWN are flawed and bounded. But using them together opens vast doors of knowledge and u can even prove the existence of God that way.
@@Dexiteros @X Y Ok, so it seems to me that you're making the point that these seemingly opposing views are not in conflict, but are compatible depending on the context. Makes sense to me. Fluid dynamics and human psychology are both great explanatory systems in their own contexts and there is very little overlap so people are happy to concede their coexistence. I suppose there might be an imaginary friction point between rationality and epistemology because there is such a large overlap in potential explanatory power. I'm interested to hear you say that by using both rationality and empiricism we could prove the existence of a God. If you don't mind, would you please let me know what your best argument is in support of gods existence?
@@BMTroubleU First of all let's agree on some terminology, there are 2 types of beings: 1. Contingent being: a being such that if it exists, it could have not existed. Like you and me and this computer and the planets and the sun and the universe etc., they could have not existed, and their existence is the result of what caused them. 2. Necessary being: a being such that if it exists, it cannot not exist. And they are no result of anything. they are beginningless. You can conclude that contingent beings are ones that depend on whatever caused it. For example, the apple has been eaten by me, this event needs me to have existed in order for it to take place. I exist, I could have not existed, so I am a contingent being that relies on that which resulted in it, that are, in this case, my parents. My parents who are contingent beings rely on their parents resulting in them in return. Hopefully, my point is clear until now. Now if you keep following this track of events you will eventually reach the universe itself and the big bang, for they are contingent beings who could have not existed. So they rely on something outside of the universe, a cause that is causeless, an absolute 1st cause, a necessary cause that has no beginning but is the mother of all beginnings. Okay but what makes that necessary cause, whatever it is, a god?! Good question. We know the cause is beginningless and necessary and absolute because we proved that, but in order to say that furthermore this cause is god, this needs further supports or else it is a leap of blind faith. Alright, let's see what qualities this cause has: 1- It is beginningless, eternal. One that everything depends on its existence while it itself relies on nothing to exist. 2- We know that the universe happened after not having have happened. Just like your fridge not having apples for some time, and then at one time you opened it and found some apples in there, you know that since the fridge at some time didnt have apples, and now it does, someone must have willed to have apples and so brought some. Meaning the cause we are talking about willed the existence of the universe after the universe not having existing before it existed. 3- The universe is scientifically in so much order and significantly unique, not only in the sense that it is impossible to have existed mathematically and probability-wise, but more so in its detailed characteristics. (And this not me talking, but cosmologists, mathematicians and astrophysicists.) So we know that this first and necessary cause is extremely powerful, extremely capable, extremely knowing and extremely wise for creating not only life, but even consciousness. Eternal, Will, power, knowledge, wisdom, are all attributes of that necessary and absolute cause. So it is only fair to say that it is god. It's like leaving your house for 3 days and you return to find a sophiticated painting better than the Monaliza painted on your room's door after it not having been there before you left. It existing after not having existed, the complexity and knowledge and accuracy and uniquness all leave no room for doubting whether it was indeed human being who caused this masterpiece on your wall. This argument for the existence of God is a cosmological argument that utilizes scientific facts, rationality and logic to deduce the conclusion. It is not fallacious in the sense that it relies on the unknown or to explain what science couldn't; if anything, the argument is based on what we know using science, in conjunction with logic and intellect.
Donald Trump like Voice and arguing always kicks me out but this time I held on hard and I must say his empiricism arguments were lit. In fact because of his ways of arguing, he made sure I leave this video after understanding what rationalism is all about as well. I love it. Thank you all. This is a pass for me. Am ready to teach my teachers lol
Empiricism is like tasting the pudding to know its flavor, while rationalism is like trying to figure out the flavor just by reading the recipe. Empiricism relies on direct experience and observation, like trying something out, while rationalism relies on reasoning and deduction, like analyzing information.
It seems one can have 'knowledge' (I would call it understanding) of principles without, or prior to, any empirical data. By this, I mean, without empirical data, one could still grasp, for example, the three laws of classical logic. However, without any actual objects to apply the principles to, it would be hard to call it 'knowledge'. If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then it would be difficult to say a belief unsupported by, and unconnected to, any physically real objects could be called 'justified'. The word 'knowledge' implies knowledge OF something. In a universe with no objective reality, knowledge would be impossible. So objective (or intersubjective) reality is a necessary component of knowledge.
personally i find existence more complicated than just thinking on a binary in itself both fall flat when taken as one above the other and then there a mercky world of the in-between where both cannot explain particular phenomena adequately like what is consciousness how is it formed or why is every electron constant in charge throughout the universe or even how can they interact with each other. also the idea of true knowledge is a rationalist argument as well as been base of empiricism.
Not from an Empiricist point of view. His arguments for Rationalism seemed like classic deflection, which is what typical rationalists do. deflect, and use arguments that don't make any sense (often connected to mythology)
@@neoskaisaras3454 Not necessarily. The fact is that universal truths exist inside our intellect, such as instincts, intuition, genetics, morality, etc. How do we react to perception? Pre-programmed, innate knowledge. Empirical evidence, experiences, do in fact exist; this does not in any way disprove rational thought based on these data points. Neither does an ad hominem, btw.
8:39 I disagree, rationalism cannot determine equal rights for women. Empiricism can prove that equal rights for women increases live quality for society in general.
I would have to disagree Empiricism could never tell us that women have equal right all it could tell us is that society may functions better if we pretend that women have equal rights, you would have to make a leap that can only ever from rationalism to say women have equal rights. also it's not so apparent to me that society does function better with women's right being equal Islam is one of the fastest grow religions in the world largely because the oppression of women leads them to choose a life of having large families making the Islamic state have a larger nation to take over the world whether society functions better seem more like a utilitarian form of ethics which deny the very existence of rights all together !
@@darcevader4146 what your take on deceptive nature of words towards mind and every knowledge come from experience and mind is included in that experience
@@stefano1405 I don't see how words themselves can be deceptive, doesn't the word deceptive mean deceptive ? people lie not word you say "every knowledge come from experience and mind is included in that experience" what experience did you have to get this knowledge ?
Seems like the empiricist arguments are very weak and go for the low hanging fruit like the extreme position of a priori knowledge. A good example of a priori knowledge would be touching a stove and feeling pain. Or animal or human instincts. Just a criticism. Otherwise I enjoyed the conversation.
this video comes across as produced by a rationalist and trying to play devils advocate for empiricism, but in doing so presents an underwhelming case for empiricism, when much more powerful arguments could have been used. Ultimately, i find this video biased, unjustifiably favorable towards the rationalist. Also, Math is not an 'innate' feature of the universe, it's merely a tool for modeling reality. it's only treated as useful to the point that it can accurately reflect knowledge from reality that we gain through _empirical means_ - math is only valid in so far it accurately reflects empirical data, it's not an "apriori truth" as your video states it. Pi is a number representing a piece of data that is obtainable from reality - "mathematical truths" are empirically derived truths that can be tested in reality. this and many other arguments that the rationalist treats as "apriori truths" are NOT apriori, but things that can be tested in reality.
I know that life follows a metaphysical process in which two distinct ideas are both true but need each other to accomplish whatever said goal. Yin & Yang almost
This is the best philosophy channel on all of UA-cam and I've watched literally all of them. So straight forward and simply put, yet covers very deep ground in a very unbiased way. I love your channel, thanks!!
I feel like the empiricist could've easily continued the discussion on every point. seems a bit biased to have him be the one to move on each time. Nonetheless a very informative video, thanks
Yeah I feel the same view. But this is mostly because my class is having a debate and I'm on the Empiricism side of the debate and l would have to gather counter arguments for certain points Rationalism has.
Idk why you would put the empiricist as a stoner and the rationalist as an intellectual. Just feeding the prejudice that rationalists use logic therefore they are intelligent.
That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Babies have some preprogramming. They have a sort of default face image hard-wired in their brain, for example. You don't remember what someone's face looks like; instead, you remember the differences of their face from that archetype you were born with. Ultimately, both empiricists and rationalists are wrong. The truth is somewhere in between. One can learn from sense experience, but then progress beyond it with their built-in reason. What's more, empiricists don't seem to understand that they don't actually experience anything but sense data. They should be called sensualists.
As a total newbie to Philosophy this is perfectly pitched. Excellent. Been trying get handle on this debate and this explained the broad strokes well. Subscribed 👍
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795Nah, only empiricism. It's literally what science operates on. If you can't prove something, it is pointless to even bother considering it.
No, skepticism is the most powerful view. It's a false dichotomy to claim that one can't live their practical life as a skeptic. A skeptic simply makes the best guess and goes with that, given no superior alternative.
People have their own desires? How come that a lot of people born in the US like baseball but not anyone born outside of the us , wake up you have no choice you are dictated by your environment and experience
7:11 I disagre with you. The concept of pi is also based on senseory experiences. If you look at the history of pi , people discovered the pi by measuring the circumference and the radius. btw great vid..
@@stefano1405 empiricism: the doctrine that knowlege originates from sense experience. Classical rationalism where pure reason is utilized has no clear limits, I guess. You can dive deep into metaphysical discourse as long as your argumets are valid and no one doubts your premises.
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT but won't there always be uncertainty in metaphysical discourse and if someone has no arguments against you still you could be wrong about actual reality (possible right) and what's your take in direct experience
An innate disposition also doesn't bring about variety. Empirical experiences aren't universal, so ofcourse there's going to be diversity. There's no way rationalism is the precursor of diversity because since the mind is objectively rational we would be more likely to arrive at objective interests and such like. Just like with maths.
5:12 Innate disposition is a different thing than innate knowledge. Biologically it stands that each human has dispositions due to the DNA of his parents, dispositions which are enforced under the appropriate circumstances/experiences. Innate knowledge on the other hand I am not so sure... Does instinct count as knowledge; the baby wanting to suck for milk?
Both systems are closed. Neither one of these rigid concepts can work without the other, at least not in my view. Little bit of nature, little bit of nurture, to what extent, who knows?
Just watching this video for my philosophy elective, but why would you need to believe I religion or outside forces to believe in rationalism? Couldn’t you say the innate ability to reason and with morality come from our biology? Or am I just not looking at this correctly?
I'd say you could make an argument for that. But the mind is guided by genetics, which is the product of chemical reactions, atoms, etc. What innate knowledge did the genes have? What innate knowledge do atoms have? In the end we have to look at cause and effect. Christianity, for me, is the only way to reconcile the universe's existence and that of rational thought.
Gage Howe I guess I’d say the genes/atoms on their own don’t have innate knowledge, but the correct culmination of them put together can then give innate knowledge. The same way words are just filler/definitions until they’re put together in the right order if that makes any sense.
Rationalism doesn’t exclude you from using sense data, it just doesn’t use it as a basis for epistemology. Clearly a unknown physical object is better found using empirical data, but that doesn’t mean that you can have metaphysical discussions using the same method.
You open the box and see a round object... Yes, you need empirical data to answer the question. But it is your ability to reason tells you that it is an owl's egg rather than a golf ball. The rationalist is NOT saying that sense data are unnecessary. Rationalism only gives primacy to 'reasoning' as the final arbiter that actually makes sense of sense data. The sheer volume of sense data that we are subject to is voluminous. It is our ability to reason that extracts intelligent information from this unholy mess of sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch.
I dont see how our differences in tastes etc, can logically conclude innate knowledge exists. For starters, the arguments presented above neglects the recent discoveries in neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
Because all blank slates are the same. Blank. Whatever you do to one blank slate would have the same effect as if you did the same to another blank slate. Since we all have different outcomes to external experience it would imply that we are not blank slates when coming into the world as empiricism suggests.
@@user-dl8cw3yd3e That would only be implied if every blank slate had identical experiences, and/or more importantly, if the different outcomes could be explained specifically by innate knowledge, of which there is zero evidence for. Rationalism has zero ground to stand on, empericism has some.
@@Professionallayman I suppose you’re not wrong. Tabula Rasa is problematic tho. Maybe innate knowledge is less evident in humans because we’re civilized and have order but it’s seen in animals who are left alone at birth. How does a sea turtle born on land know to head for water? I think reproduction has a lot to do with innate knowledge as well.
Great video. Both sides make great points. This is why I tend to prefer the epistemology of Thomas Aquinas. In my opinion, he seems to combine the two: empiricism and rationalism.
Boy oh boy...as weak as the Empiricist side was in this debate, I didn't realize how dependent rationalism was on assumptions, generalizations, mysticism, and arguments from ignorance...with that said, I guess you can't Truly be a skeptic and a rationalist at the same time...
Surely that would imply that people with similar brain structures should have similar innate concepts in their heads. Not sure how accurate that is though.
Thank you. And we have covered Intuitionism as part of the GE Moore Non Naturalism video so this might be worth a watch :) ua-cam.com/video/p4fFl-J0Vks/v-deo.html
My Argument in Favor of Empiricism Empiricism. We are born a blank slate. For example. A baby does not know instinctually to not walk off a cliff. That baby does not walk off the cliff, because that baby has a mother (someone up to speed) that stops that "blank slate" human from falling to its death. Knowledge is not instinctual, it is learned. Our society is up to a very fast speed compared to what it was 2000 years ago, which is why -- the humans you see today that excel further than anyone has in the past -- is -- because, when they are born they learn the things that we (up to speed humans) teach them. we -- GET that human "up to speed" so they can survive and thrive
A cat knows that a bird or squirrel is something to hunt without ever having another cat to demonstrate it. Instincts are rudimentary tools that get built on top of.
Granted, perception and learning does in fact exist. That doesn't prove anything. Even apart from instinct, an argument can be made for processing knowledge. We can only react and learn from perception through... reason. See where I'm going?
@@ConceptHut I can't be sure of it if you think deeply you are assuming that they don't learn it from there surrounding but than again it comes under evolutionary biology not some god given crap right
@@gagehowe1960 but initially a baby is a blank slate than as with time he generates more impression than he starts using his perception for that knowledge isn't it so it is a interchange of both so the claim that knowledge come from senses how much distorted it may be is correct isn't it but not denying the role of conclusion or inference
But interests aren't innate are they? I'd think it'll depend on how the music makes you feel, what knowledge you gain from it. Certain experiences would've prompted the preference of heavy mental over pop. Innate to me in this scenario would be having never heard music from either genre and declaring that you'd like heavy metal over pop or jazz.
Would the animal kingdom have an influence on this argument? I'm thinking of animal instincts such as a salmon finding its way back to its home river, birds migrating or having nest building skills which seem to be innate (i.e. animals are not just a tabula rasa)
This is what I kept thinking about watching this. I thought about the idea that we have innate knowledge but it's not necessarily spiritual or god given. Like how babies hold their arms out if they feel themselves falling naturally, or how rats, even labratory bound ones who have never met a cat have a panic response to cat smell. I think evolution should be mentioned in this argument and I think that 'nature vs nurture' could be brought up as an interesting sidenote to the debate since the empirical standpoint is in a basic way 'nurture'. Perhaps genetics should be mentioned as well, especially when talking about being predisposed to certain interests and talents. Such an interesting topic!
Despite some irritating features of presentation, you're actually pretty good. The warning at the end, against oppositional thinking, was good and often neglected. And thinking about it the stylized, deadpan, presentation is perhaps a good way of treating such subjects. It's just when the guy on the left says 'fascinating' and sounds as thoughhe's dying of boredom... But thank you, and please keep it up.
I need to have sensory experiences in order to reason and obtain true knowledge. You cannot obtain true knowledge without the use of both rationalism and empiricism.
We are NOT TABULA RASA.. Our languages , myths contain,, REQUIRE as sign posts universal ARCHETYPES.. OTHER PROOFS IN our senses limits ..Rationalism exceeds experience,,,how else could we create the auto, plane,rocket ship ,alter molecular structures to produce new qualities, ECT... A '''THOUGHT''' Experiment ,,thinking of future intention and then recall events in your past,,,hast this not transcended time and space of senses ? More proof to contextualize this but in this structured format/ sign posts,,EMPIRICISM IS ONLY A FEATURE OF RATIONALISM...GREAT SHOW ,THANKS
I would argue Empiricism to be just as relevant as Rationalism when applied to the question of ethics. The Spartans had no qualms about throwing babies off cliffs, they lacked that presumed innate sense of wrong and believed it right as the violence of the period led them to a violent society. That practice was formed over time as a result of their experiences. Yet as time marched on, infanticide would prove extinct and eventually abhorrent. That change was perhaps charged by the quietening of war, but also by an innate sense of guilt. Views on right and wrong are in part innate, and in part derived - as I believe applies to ones psychology. Innately the human has his survival instincts, and innately perhaps one may find better qualification in one profession over another. However experience also lends oneself to change. Are rationalists and empiricists not simply two peas of the same pod? They both believe in truth, of law, and in their pursuit. Empiricists however were spurred upon in a more turbulent age of learning, to promote critique of that established truth and law, to uncover a more accurate truth or law, to test that truth or law. In that sense, empiricists are simply skeptic rationalists. Skepticism can be harmful or beneficial, application of skepticism can be either a benefit or a hindrance.
This argument that one must use rationalism for things they cannot sense does not necessarily follow. The empiricist would argue that one is simply inferring data from their experience, when they think about abstract things.
We need empericism because we dont have any axioms to describe nature. Ironically if we discover such an axiom, we will make empericism obsolete as everything (literally) can be rationaly deduced.
even in the example that if we only see white ducks all our life and deduct that ducks are only white, to prove that ducks can also be black requires an empirical evidence of finding one and disproving the previous belief , how can rationalism help in that case to reach a conclusion that ducks can also be black without an empirical evidence first?
I disagree when he said we only use the senses in science to come to know the world. We also use rational mind to explain what we see and make logical deductions about what we see. It seems to me a combination of both but to discard one or the other is rather foolish to me, but that's just me.
Rationalism is the best source source of knowledge. Why? Because empirical knowledge can only tell you what is happening at face value. When used in science, it can tell you plenty of things about the universe. However, it cannot tell you what is *ultimately* true. In order to discover an ultimate truth, this requires *rationalism.* The conclusion that ultimate truth "cannot be known" is an empiricist conclusion.
@@SkyHize Respectfully, you're making an absolute knowledge claim while also inadvertently admitting that you don't ultimately know it, and similarly to a religious position, your comment seems religious in its own way as it essentially invites people to place their eternal fate in your hands, hands of a man who admits not to know, and you are dictating to them a limitation that they cannot know or find the answers to the deepest questions, which means you are actually discouraging people from the pursuit of truth by denying it's possibility to be obtained. Also, you are conflating the actual truth (true state of reality) one is seeking with a person's perception of it. "Approximations" pertain to a reach toward that truth, but it's not itself that truth it reaches toward. The last issue with your post is that it seems it attempts to "censor" other messages through a short dismissive close end 2 sentence response.
When speaking about approximations, it means that we can always find out more about reality so it doesn't make sense to say that you suddenly become content and give up on the search. It couldn't be further from the truth as people who like saying that they have or reached ultimate truths are the religious thinkers who indulge in dogma. If you have reached "truth", there is no other reason to continue. You have reached the wrong conclusion.
@@SkyHize The message is inherently antitruth because it implies that the ultimate truth can never be reached. It is a message against the core of Truth itself.
Yeah rationalism tells me if "a" is equal to "c" and "c" is equal to "b", then "a" must be equal to "b". Therefore it can be said that a=b=c. I don't need to have data from my senses or machines to deduce this. Logical deductions are rationalism. But arriving at moral conclusions through conjecture and subjective emotions is a danger. There are also dangers in empiricism in that without a rationalist approach, we can easily end up misinterpreting the data we have gathered, like some kind of machine that decides to wipe out most of humanity to help a few survive. Rationalism is the DISCERNMENT we need to interpret and apply empirical data
rationalism>>> so many studies where i've found myself saying "this doesn't mean that x can't be the case" or "this assuemes that..." or something about biased sample groups
The only problem with terming this as a "debate" is that Empiricism is on the back foot the whole time, defending it's arguments but never critiquing Rationalism. It's more of a debunking video of Empiricism using Rationalism as an alternative.
The problem is NOT between RATIONALISM and EMPIRICISM, but with lack of THE CRITERION OF PROOF for what facts (or even bluffs) should be accepted as KNOWLEDGE. We require knowledge only to overcome hindrances to find the means for satisfactiin of our NEEDS. By that I mean feelings in the body of any beings (hunger, fear, pain). If we restrict search for knowledge to the activity necessary for finding the means to satisfy these needs (eradicate pain, eliminate fear, satiate hunger), then the conflict between the "innate knowledge" and "experience" vanishes, as both serve this single purpose. Animals, and even our own new borns, don't need any teacher to tell them where to find their food. That is innate knowledge no empiricist (TABULA RASA ist) can deny. Neither can any rationalist deny the necessity to search for food later in life. The fact, therefore, is that one does not exclude the other, but the problem is in the way we present the search, OUR FAILURE TO ASSOSIATE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE TO OWN PURPOSE, hence to THE ONLY PROPER CRITERION OF PROOF. There is no guarantee that facts collected as knowledge by experiments and/or observations would serve to satisfy needs of beings even when the predictions through them tally 100% with reality. That is why our EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE even struggles to PREDICT disasters (natural and man made), whereas a correct system SHOULD show the way to PREVENT them.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe3
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Aaaaa
This video has taught me more about Rationalism and Empiricism than the school system for 3 months. Thank you!
Happy this video helped :)
I have some doubt
@@stefano1405 what doubt
Perhaps you should do your reading before class?
@@Brian-ro7st lol fr tho
I recently found this channel and I’m really liking the approach you take to educating people on philosophy. The dialogue you use as a pedagogical model is similar to what Plato did in a lot of his writings.
Thank you, glad you are enjoying the content 😀
Epigenetics is just one way to scientifically explain the concept of “Innate Knowledge“
Correct !
why not regular genetics ? the fear of falling for example is programmed through evolution
I don't understand how hobbies and interests could be an example of Rationalsim, are you saying they can't be learned? If that were true, then every tribe would be vastly different individuals. My dad likes football, so I grew up watching football, so now I like football. I wasn't born with a prior knowledge of football, there's no way to prove that football was even real in a past life, so how can I rationally say that I was born with an interest in football? That doesn't really make sense to me, maybe I'm wrong? Idk what do you think?
The empiricism in this video is the empiricism that no empiricist have ever believed in
Because almost all of them don't know about epistemology and what is above science and the other ways to gain knowledge. They know nothing but "science" which is "empirical science".
Could you please explain how an empiricist would differ in their beliefs to those which were explained in the video?
I'm just starting to question the difference between rationality and empiricism so I don't want a straw man of either side to cloud my judgement
@@BMTroubleU I respect your caution about not making a misjudgment.
To make stuff clear instantly, remind yourself that we are talking about PURE empiricism vs PURE rationalism. Both alone are flawed and make our intellect limited.
How? Well, pure empiricism disregards everything that we do not experience with our 5 senses as empty talk.
The problem with pure empiricism is that if we apply it alone, we would have to let go of a big portion of math for most of it cannot be proven via our senses. Example: we know that if u move with numbers 2 by 2,every number u land on is divisible by 2, but can we prove it? Can we experiment it on ALL numbers? No, but it is true. Another example is the form/shape of atoms, which is something nobody witnessed, but we know roughly how they look. Light's speed is immeasurable, the speed of light we know isnt the speed of light going from A to B, but from A to B and back to A. (u can check that btw, most ppl dont know that). Nobody saw electrons move in wires to creare electricity, nobody saw gravity etc.
For example some say that they wont believe in god unless they can see it, and that is flawed because based on that concept, u cant believe in the existence of atoms, gravity, electricity, and not even ur great grandfather, because u never saw these.
Through pure empiricism we cannot know any of these and a lot more significant stuff.
Pure rationalism is based on logic and and the mind. It is what gives birth to math as we know it today, it is the logic u use to add 2 infos together to get to a third info. Example: stuff fall on the ground. So something is either pushing them to the ground or the ground pulling them to it. When we get further from the ground (via rockets) we escape this power and so we know that there isnt something pushing us to the ground but the ground itself pulling us to it. Then we called that gravity. Through pure empiricism, this is nonsense, for yes u saw the consequence of it (the fall) but not the reason or gravity itself nor the thing in the earth pulling us, but rationally u can conclude all these stuff.
So both schools ON THEIR OWN are flawed and bounded. But using them together opens vast doors of knowledge and u can even prove the existence of God that way.
@@Dexiteros
@X Y Ok, so it seems to me that you're making the point that these seemingly opposing views are not in conflict, but are compatible depending on the context. Makes sense to me. Fluid dynamics and human psychology are both great explanatory systems in their own contexts and there is very little overlap so people are happy to concede their coexistence. I suppose there might be an imaginary friction point between rationality and epistemology because there is such a large overlap in potential explanatory power.
I'm interested to hear you say that by using both rationality and empiricism we could prove the existence of a God.
If you don't mind, would you please let me know what your best argument is in support of gods existence?
@@BMTroubleU First of all let's agree on some terminology, there are 2 types of beings:
1. Contingent being: a being such that if it exists, it could have not existed. Like you and me and this computer and the planets and the sun and the universe etc., they could have not existed, and their existence is the result of what caused them.
2. Necessary being: a being such that if it exists, it cannot not exist. And they are no result of anything. they are beginningless.
You can conclude that contingent beings are ones that depend on whatever caused it. For example, the apple has been eaten by me, this event needs me to have existed in order for it to take place. I exist, I could have not existed, so I am a contingent being that relies on that which resulted in it, that are, in this case, my parents. My parents who are contingent beings rely on their parents resulting in them in return.
Hopefully, my point is clear until now. Now if you keep following this track of events you will eventually reach the universe itself and the big bang, for they are contingent beings who could have not existed. So they rely on something outside of the universe, a cause that is causeless, an absolute 1st cause, a necessary cause that has no beginning but is the mother of all beginnings.
Okay but what makes that necessary cause, whatever it is, a god?!
Good question. We know the cause is beginningless and necessary and absolute because we proved that, but in order to say that furthermore this cause is god, this needs further supports or else it is a leap of blind faith.
Alright, let's see what qualities this cause has:
1- It is beginningless, eternal. One that everything depends on its existence while it itself relies on nothing to exist.
2- We know that the universe happened after not having have happened. Just like your fridge not having apples for some time, and then at one time you opened it and found some apples in there, you know that since the fridge at some time didnt have apples, and now it does, someone must have willed to have apples and so brought some. Meaning the cause we are talking about willed the existence of the universe after the universe not having existing before it existed.
3- The universe is scientifically in so much order and significantly unique, not only in the sense that it is impossible to have existed mathematically and probability-wise, but more so in its detailed characteristics. (And this not me talking, but cosmologists, mathematicians and astrophysicists.) So we know that this first and necessary cause is extremely powerful, extremely capable, extremely knowing and extremely wise for creating not only life, but even consciousness.
Eternal, Will, power, knowledge, wisdom, are all attributes of that necessary and absolute cause. So it is only fair to say that it is god.
It's like leaving your house for 3 days and you return to find a sophiticated painting better than the Monaliza painted on your room's door after it not having been there before you left. It existing after not having existed, the complexity and knowledge and accuracy and uniquness all leave no room for doubting whether it was indeed human being who caused this masterpiece on your wall.
This argument for the existence of God is a cosmological argument that utilizes scientific facts, rationality and logic to deduce the conclusion. It is not fallacious in the sense that it relies on the unknown or to explain what science couldn't; if anything, the argument is based on what we know using science, in conjunction with logic and intellect.
Thank-you, my experience is that people do have different talents which is why I am aware people are individuals.
How does pragmatism mediate between rationalism and empiricism?
10:27 one can only deduce that the five ducks observed or all white. It's an assumption without empiricism that all ducks are white.
But then is it not an assumption that other ducks exist in the first place?
Donald Trump like Voice and arguing always kicks me out but this time I held on hard and I must say his empiricism arguments were lit. In fact because of his ways of arguing, he made sure I leave this video after understanding what rationalism is all about as well. I love it. Thank you all. This is a pass for me. Am ready to teach my teachers lol
Glad you found this video useful :)
I enjoyed this video!! Thank you so much. I can now understand what Empiricism and Rationalism means than what they taught us at school.
Glad we could help :D
The value of Pi can be empirically observed. Also, I like the rumpled carpet on the left side.
This debate boils my f@&king blood 🩸
Empiricism is like tasting the pudding to know its flavor, while rationalism is like trying to figure out the flavor just by reading the recipe. Empiricism relies on direct experience and observation, like trying something out, while rationalism relies on reasoning and deduction, like analyzing information.
Empiricism: we all are like blank slates when we are born.
Rationalism: Yes, but blank slates of different qualities.
It seems one can have 'knowledge' (I would call it understanding) of principles without, or prior to, any empirical data. By this, I mean, without empirical data, one could still grasp, for example, the three laws of classical logic.
However, without any actual objects to apply the principles to, it would be hard to call it 'knowledge'. If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then it would be difficult to say a belief unsupported by, and unconnected to, any physically real objects could be called 'justified'.
The word 'knowledge' implies knowledge OF something. In a universe with no objective reality, knowledge would be impossible. So objective (or intersubjective) reality is a necessary component of knowledge.
Had to watch this video in 0.75x 😂 btw thank you for this video . You always clear my doubts ♥️
You're welcome, thanks for watching :)
Great it taught everything in simple words...
personally i find existence more complicated than just thinking on a binary in itself both fall flat when taken as one above the other and then there a mercky world of the in-between where both cannot explain particular phenomena adequately like what is consciousness how is it formed or why is every electron constant in charge throughout the universe or even how can they interact with each other. also the idea of true knowledge is a rationalist argument as well as been base of empiricism.
I stand with Rationalism but however, I adopt some of the concepts of Empiricism
I like this video... It's very helpful for me...👍
Glad we could help :)
Amazing video honestly learned a loy !can you make a video on Kant's Phenomenal and Noumenal reality
.It would be great !
Happy we could help you learn. In fact we have a video on Kant's Transcendental Idealism coming up in March, so stay tuned!
@@PhilosophyVibe Yes thanks can't wait.
@@PhilosophyVibe may I ask you something
3:06 please straighten your carpet guys
I feel the Empiricism got B-slapped in this video lol
Not from an Empiricist point of view. His arguments for Rationalism seemed like classic deflection, which is what typical rationalists do. deflect, and use arguments that don't make any sense (often connected to mythology)
@@neoskaisaras3454 may I ask u some question
@@neoskaisaras3454 Not necessarily. The fact is that universal truths exist inside our intellect, such as instincts, intuition, genetics, morality, etc. How do we react to perception? Pre-programmed, innate knowledge. Empirical evidence, experiences, do in fact exist; this does not in any way disprove rational thought based on these data points. Neither does an ad hominem, btw.
@@gagehowe1960 may I ask you something
@@gagehowe1960 may I ask you something
Tq
Welcome
Thanks so much!!
You're welcome!
Are questions ok with this Thread?
Excellent!
Thank you.
Amazing video! Well done
Thank you :)
8:39 I disagree, rationalism cannot determine equal rights for women. Empiricism can prove that equal rights for women increases live quality for society in general.
I would have to disagree Empiricism could never tell us that women have equal right all it could tell us is that society may functions better if we pretend that women have equal rights, you would have to make a leap that can only ever from rationalism to say women have equal rights.
also it's not so apparent to me that society does function better with women's right being equal
Islam is one of the fastest grow religions in the world largely because the oppression of women leads them to choose a life of having large families making the Islamic state have a larger nation to take over the world
whether society functions better seem more like a utilitarian form of ethics which deny the very existence of rights all together !
@@darcevader4146 may I ask you something
@@stefano1405 ya of course ask away
man
@@darcevader4146 what your take on deceptive nature of words towards mind and every knowledge come from experience and mind is included in that experience
@@stefano1405 I don't see how words themselves can be deceptive, doesn't the word deceptive mean deceptive ? people lie not word
you say "every knowledge come from experience and mind is included in that experience"
what experience did you have to get this knowledge ?
Good
Thanks
I'll go for rationalism.
great content
Thank you!
I’ve had babies. They were definitely NOT born tabula rasa.
great
Thanks
Great video 👍
Thank you :)
Seems like the empiricist arguments are very weak and go for the low hanging fruit like the extreme position of a priori knowledge. A good example of a priori knowledge would be touching a stove and feeling pain. Or animal or human instincts.
Just a criticism. Otherwise I enjoyed the conversation.
Laughing in absurdity.
this video comes across as produced by a rationalist and trying to play devils advocate for empiricism, but in doing so presents an underwhelming case for empiricism, when much more powerful arguments could have been used. Ultimately, i find this video biased, unjustifiably favorable towards the rationalist.
Also, Math is not an 'innate' feature of the universe, it's merely a tool for modeling reality. it's only treated as useful to the point that it can accurately reflect knowledge from reality that we gain through _empirical means_ - math is only valid in so far it accurately reflects empirical data, it's not an "apriori truth" as your video states it. Pi is a number representing a piece of data that is obtainable from reality - "mathematical truths" are empirically derived truths that can be tested in reality. this and many other arguments that the rationalist treats as "apriori truths" are NOT apriori, but things that can be tested in reality.
Empiricism is the data, rationalism is the software. You need both to attain knowledge.
Great way to word it
I know that life follows a metaphysical process in which two distinct ideas are both true but need each other to accomplish whatever said goal.
Yin & Yang almost
@@beabadoobeepo thank you.
I learn more toward Empiricism, but this is a good argument.
Rationalism is trial and error
Empiciricsm is taking things at face value
This is how philosophy should be taught. You can't learn philosophy without questioning it.
This is the best philosophy channel on all of UA-cam and I've watched literally all of them. So straight forward and simply put, yet covers very deep ground in a very unbiased way. I love your channel, thanks!!
You're very welcome, thank you for watching the content and we are glad you enjoy :)
I really feel like empiricism is misrepresented here
Yeah it is.
How so?
I feel like the empiricist could've easily continued the discussion on every point. seems a bit biased to have him be the one to move on each time.
Nonetheless a very informative video, thanks
Yeah I feel the same view. But this is mostly because my class is having a debate and I'm on the Empiricism side of the debate and l would have to gather counter arguments for certain points Rationalism has.
😅😅🤣🤣
@@JustEvelynAndArt who won the debate.
@@saab-xq8lc Immanuel Kant
Great video!
Definitely a mixture of the two is what we need.
Thank you!
A video on transcendental idealism would be a great analogue to this! thanks for your work
Great suggestion, this is something we will look into.
Idk why you would put the empiricist as a stoner and the rationalist as an intellectual. Just feeding the prejudice that rationalists use logic therefore they are intelligent.
Are you calling John a stoner lol
That's a ridiculous false dichotomy.
Babies have some preprogramming.
They have a sort of default face image hard-wired in their brain, for example.
You don't remember what someone's face looks like; instead, you remember the differences of their face from that archetype you were born with.
Ultimately, both empiricists and rationalists are wrong.
The truth is somewhere in between.
One can learn from sense experience, but then progress beyond it with their built-in reason.
What's more, empiricists don't seem to understand that they don't actually experience anything but sense data.
They should be called sensualists.
Sheeesh thanks for the comment, made me understand a bit more
As a total newbie to Philosophy this is perfectly pitched. Excellent. Been trying get handle on this debate and this explained the broad strokes well. Subscribed 👍
Thank you, glad you enjoyed :)
Very clear for the non experts, thanks very much!
You're welcome, glad we could help.
A healthy dose of empiricism with a dash of rationalism
I would say the opposite
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 a healthy dose of rationalism and a dash of empiricism?
@@markaponte7057 Nah, onnly rationnalism with some empiricism.
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 gotcha
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795Nah, only empiricism.
It's literally what science operates on. If you can't prove something, it is pointless to even bother considering it.
No, skepticism is the most powerful view.
It's a false dichotomy to claim that one can't live their practical life as a skeptic.
A skeptic simply makes the best guess and goes with that, given no superior alternative.
People have their own desires? How come that a lot of people born in the US like baseball but not anyone born outside of the us , wake up you have no choice you are dictated by your environment and experience
7:11 I disagre with you. The concept of pi is also based on senseory experiences. If you look at the history of pi , people discovered the pi by measuring the circumference and the radius. btw great vid..
Yes that’s exactly what i tought
damn,it feels good that i actually understand this because we share a same thought😆epistemelogy is mind twisting man
Pi is a logical deducation from the combination of circumference and radius, therefore it is rationalism and not based on a sensory experience.
Incorrect, that is the discovery of pi. Which now can be proven axiomatically by reason alone.
When you are familiar with the Kantian epistemology, you can feel how primitive the rationalism vs empiricism debate is.
Love the video btw.
May I ask you something
@@stefano1405 yes
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT what is empiricism and limits of rationalism
@@stefano1405
empiricism: the doctrine that knowlege originates from sense experience.
Classical rationalism where pure reason is utilized has no clear limits, I guess. You can dive deep into metaphysical discourse as long as your argumets are valid and no one doubts your premises.
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT but won't there always be uncertainty in metaphysical discourse and if someone has no arguments against you still you could be wrong about actual reality (possible right) and what's your take in direct experience
i am majoring philosophy now for my pre law, hope your channel help me in this 4 year journey sir 😼✊🏻
An innate disposition also doesn't bring about variety. Empirical experiences aren't universal, so ofcourse there's going to be diversity. There's no way rationalism is the precursor of diversity because since the mind is objectively rational we would be more likely to arrive at objective interests and such like. Just like with maths.
5:12 Innate disposition is a different thing than innate knowledge. Biologically it stands that each human has dispositions due to the DNA of his parents, dispositions which are enforced under the appropriate circumstances/experiences. Innate knowledge on the other hand I am not so sure... Does instinct count as knowledge; the baby wanting to suck for milk?
thank you for this video! the method of debate that you just did is indeed effective kind of learning!
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching.
Both systems are closed. Neither one of these rigid concepts can work without the other, at least not in my view. Little bit of nature, little bit of nurture, to what extent, who knows?
Just watching this video for my philosophy elective, but why would you need to believe I religion or outside forces to believe in rationalism? Couldn’t you say the innate ability to reason and with morality come from our biology? Or am I just not looking at this correctly?
I'd say you could make an argument for that. But the mind is guided by genetics, which is the product of chemical reactions, atoms, etc. What innate knowledge did the genes have? What innate knowledge do atoms have?
In the end we have to look at cause and effect. Christianity, for me, is the only way to reconcile the universe's existence and that of rational thought.
Gage Howe I guess I’d say the genes/atoms on their own don’t have innate knowledge, but the correct culmination of them put together can then give innate knowledge. The same way words are just filler/definitions until they’re put together in the right order if that makes any sense.
I'm a little lost on Rationalism. Can someone tell me, if I have a box with something inside, how can I find out what is inside by using reason alone?
Good question. I'd like to know this as well.
Rationalism doesn’t exclude you from using sense data, it just doesn’t use it as a basis for epistemology. Clearly a unknown physical object is better found using empirical data, but that doesn’t mean that you can have metaphysical discussions using the same method.
@@peenweinerstein9968 but metaphysics is something that cannot be proven to exist in the first place
You open the box and see a round object... Yes, you need empirical data to answer the question. But it is your ability to reason tells you that it is an owl's egg rather than a golf ball. The rationalist is NOT saying that sense data are unnecessary. Rationalism only gives primacy to 'reasoning' as the final arbiter that actually makes sense of sense data. The sheer volume of sense data that we are subject to is voluminous. It is our ability to reason that extracts intelligent information from this unholy mess of sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch.
@@hkumar7340 "how can I find out what is inside by using REASON ALONE?"
Debates gives wholesome understanding of concepts , Thank You so much , for this extremely informative video.
You're welcome, glad you found this useful.
I dont see how our differences in tastes etc, can logically conclude innate knowledge exists.
For starters, the arguments presented above neglects the recent discoveries in neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
Because all blank slates are the same. Blank. Whatever you do to one blank slate would have the same effect as if you did the same to another blank slate. Since we all have different outcomes to external experience it would imply that we are not blank slates when coming into the world as empiricism suggests.
@@user-dl8cw3yd3e That would only be implied if every blank slate had identical experiences, and/or more importantly, if the different outcomes could be explained specifically by innate knowledge, of which there is zero evidence for. Rationalism has zero ground to stand on, empericism has some.
@@Professionallayman I suppose you’re not wrong. Tabula Rasa is problematic tho. Maybe innate knowledge is less evident in humans because we’re civilized and have order but it’s seen in animals who are left alone at birth. How does a sea turtle born on land know to head for water? I think reproduction has a lot to do with innate knowledge as well.
What a great debate. Philosophy Vibe has become my first port of call whenever I'm looking for clarity on philosophical issues.
So great to hear, glad we can help you on your philosophy journey :)
Hi something I want clarity on please help
same
Great video. Both sides make great points. This is why I tend to prefer the epistemology of Thomas Aquinas. In my opinion, he seems to combine the two: empiricism and rationalism.
Boy oh boy...as weak as the Empiricist side was in this debate, I didn't realize how dependent rationalism was on assumptions, generalizations, mysticism, and arguments from ignorance...with that said, I guess you can't Truly be a skeptic and a rationalist at the same time...
Spoken like a true empiricist. Your side isn’t as watertight as you “assume” it is.
1 dislike from a sceptic
I think innate concepts can just come from our brain structure which was shaped over millenia by natural selection.
Surely that would imply that people with similar brain structures should have similar innate concepts in their heads. Not sure how accurate that is though.
Great video
What’s your view on objective morality as an innate tendency built in humans ?
Thank you. And we have covered Intuitionism as part of the GE Moore Non Naturalism video so this might be worth a watch :)
ua-cam.com/video/p4fFl-J0Vks/v-deo.html
Holy cow.. this video is amazing... great debates, answers, and overall conversation!
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.
My Argument in Favor of Empiricism
Empiricism. We are born a blank slate.
For example. A baby does not know instinctually to not walk off a cliff.
That baby does not walk off the cliff, because that baby has a mother (someone up to speed) that stops that "blank slate" human from falling to its death.
Knowledge is not instinctual, it is learned. Our society is up to a very fast speed compared to what it was 2000 years ago, which is why -- the humans you see today that excel further than anyone has in the past -- is -- because, when they are born they learn the things that we (up to speed humans) teach them.
we -- GET that human "up to speed" so they can survive and thrive
A cat knows that a bird or squirrel is something to hunt without ever having another cat to demonstrate it. Instincts are rudimentary tools that get built on top of.
Granted, perception and learning does in fact exist. That doesn't prove anything. Even apart from instinct, an argument can be made for processing knowledge. We can only react and learn from perception through... reason. See where I'm going?
@@ConceptHut I can't be sure of it if you think deeply you are assuming that they don't learn it from there surrounding but than again it comes under evolutionary biology not some god given crap right
@@gagehowe1960 but initially a baby is a blank slate than as with time he generates more impression than he starts using his perception for that knowledge isn't it so it is a interchange of both so the claim that knowledge come from senses how much distorted it may be is correct isn't it but not denying the role of conclusion or inference
@@gagehowe1960 not replying
But interests aren't innate are they? I'd think it'll depend on how the music makes you feel, what knowledge you gain from it. Certain experiences would've prompted the preference of heavy mental over pop. Innate to me in this scenario would be having never heard music from either genre and declaring that you'd like heavy metal over pop or jazz.
Our Philosophy teacher opened this video in lesson, i liked it 👍
Great to know, glad you liked the video :)
Would the animal kingdom have an influence on this argument? I'm thinking of animal instincts such as a salmon finding its way back to its home river, birds migrating or having nest building skills which seem to be innate (i.e. animals are not just a tabula rasa)
This is what I kept thinking about watching this. I thought about the idea that we have innate knowledge but it's not necessarily spiritual or god given. Like how babies hold their arms out if they feel themselves falling naturally, or how rats, even labratory bound ones who have never met a cat have a panic response to cat smell. I think evolution should be mentioned in this argument and I think that 'nature vs nurture' could be brought up as an interesting sidenote to the debate since the empirical standpoint is in a basic way 'nurture'. Perhaps genetics should be mentioned as well, especially when talking about being predisposed to certain interests and talents. Such an interesting topic!
Despite some irritating features of presentation, you're actually pretty good. The warning at the end, against oppositional thinking, was good and often neglected. And thinking about it the stylized, deadpan, presentation is perhaps a good way of treating such subjects. It's just when the guy on the left says 'fascinating' and sounds as thoughhe's dying of boredom... But thank you, and please keep it up.
I need to have sensory experiences in order to reason and obtain true knowledge. You cannot obtain true knowledge without the use of both rationalism and empiricism.
We are NOT TABULA RASA.. Our languages , myths contain,, REQUIRE as sign posts universal ARCHETYPES.. OTHER PROOFS IN our senses limits ..Rationalism exceeds experience,,,how else could we create the auto, plane,rocket ship ,alter molecular structures to produce new qualities, ECT... A '''THOUGHT''' Experiment ,,thinking of future intention and then recall events in your past,,,hast this not transcended time and space of senses ? More proof to contextualize this but in this structured format/ sign posts,,EMPIRICISM IS ONLY A FEATURE OF RATIONALISM...GREAT SHOW ,THANKS
I would argue Empiricism to be just as relevant as Rationalism when applied to the question of ethics. The Spartans had no qualms about throwing babies off cliffs, they lacked that presumed innate sense of wrong and believed it right as the violence of the period led them to a violent society. That practice was formed over time as a result of their experiences. Yet as time marched on, infanticide would prove extinct and eventually abhorrent. That change was perhaps charged by the quietening of war, but also by an innate sense of guilt. Views on right and wrong are in part innate, and in part derived - as I believe applies to ones psychology. Innately the human has his survival instincts, and innately perhaps one may find better qualification in one profession over another. However experience also lends oneself to change.
Are rationalists and empiricists not simply two peas of the same pod? They both believe in truth, of law, and in their pursuit. Empiricists however were spurred upon in a more turbulent age of learning, to promote critique of that established truth and law, to uncover a more accurate truth or law, to test that truth or law. In that sense, empiricists are simply skeptic rationalists. Skepticism can be harmful or beneficial, application of skepticism can be either a benefit or a hindrance.
This argument that one must use rationalism for things they cannot sense does not necessarily follow.
The empiricist would argue that one is simply inferring data from their experience, when they think about abstract things.
We need empericism because we dont have any axioms to describe nature. Ironically if we discover such an axiom, we will make empericism obsolete as everything (literally) can be rationaly deduced.
even in the example that if we only see white ducks all our life and deduct that ducks are only white, to prove that ducks can also be black requires an empirical evidence of finding one and disproving the previous belief , how can rationalism help in that case to reach a conclusion that ducks can also be black without an empirical evidence first?
4:38 dumb take
I disagree when he said we only use the senses in science to come to know the world. We also use rational mind to explain what we see and make logical deductions about what we see. It seems to me a combination of both but to discard one or the other is rather foolish to me, but that's just me.
Rationalism is the best source source of knowledge. Why? Because empirical knowledge can only tell you what is happening at face value. When used in science, it can tell you plenty of things about the universe. However, it cannot tell you what is *ultimately* true.
In order to discover an ultimate truth, this requires *rationalism.*
The conclusion that ultimate truth "cannot be known" is an empiricist conclusion.
This is exactly why we need both.
No such a thing as ultimate truth. There can only be approximations at best.
@@SkyHize Respectfully, you're making an absolute knowledge claim while also inadvertently admitting that you don't ultimately know it, and similarly to a religious position, your comment seems religious in its own way as it essentially invites people to place their eternal fate in your hands, hands of a man who admits not to know, and you are dictating to them a limitation that they cannot know or find the answers to the deepest questions, which means you are actually discouraging people from the pursuit of truth by denying it's possibility to be obtained. Also, you are conflating the actual truth (true state of reality) one is seeking with a person's perception of it. "Approximations" pertain to a reach toward that truth, but it's not itself that truth it reaches toward. The last issue with your post is that it seems it attempts to "censor" other messages through a short dismissive close end 2 sentence response.
When speaking about approximations, it means that we can always find out more about reality so it doesn't make sense to say that you suddenly become content and give up on the search. It couldn't be further from the truth as people who like saying that they have or reached ultimate truths are the religious thinkers who indulge in dogma. If you have reached "truth", there is no other reason to continue. You have reached the wrong conclusion.
@@SkyHize The message is inherently antitruth because it implies that the ultimate truth can never be reached. It is a message against the core of Truth itself.
logic/rationalism is only a way to transform empirical data to a form that we can use/understand.
I smell some bias here Psychology as a science has suffered greatly being a believer of rationalism. Things never happen has we imagine them to.
Yeah rationalism tells me if "a" is equal to "c" and "c" is equal to "b", then "a" must be equal to "b". Therefore it can be said that a=b=c. I don't need to have data from my senses or machines to deduce this. Logical deductions are rationalism. But arriving at moral conclusions through conjecture and subjective emotions is a danger. There are also dangers in empiricism in that without a rationalist approach, we can easily end up misinterpreting the data we have gathered, like some kind of machine that decides to wipe out most of humanity to help a few survive. Rationalism is the DISCERNMENT we need to interpret and apply empirical data
rationalism>>>
so many studies where i've found myself saying "this doesn't mean that x can't be the case" or "this assuemes that..." or something about biased sample groups
4:02. He absolutely roasted you and all you had was 'some people have different personalities'
what are the application of traditional rationalist in empiricist society plz explain
Can you please cover Hempel’s behaviourism and George Ryley for metaphysics of mind?
Thank you for the suggestions, we will look into this.
May I ask u something
Rationalists take advantage of the "gaps". Things that we do not understand yet and bridge that gap by mental gymnastics.
kant’s synthetic a priori wound solve the first debate surely
It said in a game of football who is God supporting? Winner or looser
The guy on the left sounds like such a stoner
I think we need emperical and rational method because to live peacefully.
I agree with the last person, I learned more in this little video than 3.5 hours of my lectures so thank you 🙏
You're welcome, glad we could help.
Why are people incapable of pronouncing etcetera properly?
The only problem with terming this as a "debate" is that Empiricism is on the back foot the whole time, defending it's arguments but never critiquing Rationalism. It's more of a debunking video of Empiricism using Rationalism as an alternative.
The problem is NOT between RATIONALISM and EMPIRICISM, but with lack of THE CRITERION OF PROOF for what facts (or even bluffs) should be accepted as KNOWLEDGE.
We require knowledge only to overcome hindrances to find the means for satisfactiin of our NEEDS. By that I mean feelings in the body of any beings (hunger, fear, pain).
If we restrict search for knowledge to the activity necessary for finding the means to satisfy these needs (eradicate pain, eliminate fear, satiate hunger), then the conflict between the "innate knowledge" and "experience" vanishes, as both serve this single purpose.
Animals, and even our own new borns, don't need any teacher to tell them where to find their food. That is innate knowledge no empiricist (TABULA RASA ist) can deny. Neither can any rationalist deny the necessity to search for food later in life.
The fact, therefore, is that one does not exclude the other, but the problem is in the way we present the search, OUR FAILURE TO ASSOSIATE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE TO OWN PURPOSE, hence to THE ONLY PROPER CRITERION OF PROOF.
There is no guarantee that facts collected as knowledge by experiments and/or observations would serve to satisfy needs of beings even when the predictions through them tally 100% with reality.
That is why our EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE even struggles to PREDICT disasters (natural and man made), whereas a correct system SHOULD show the way to PREVENT them.