Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Principles of Empiricism
The Principles of Empiricism
The Principles of Empiricism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Principles of Empiricism
If a dogma is an unfounded conclusion or simply a statement, then it would seem that dogmas have little or no place in philosophical theories. That is to say, if philosophy seeks a better understanding of knowledge, then anything that is strictly dogmatic would be just the opposite. The only issue with dogmatic ideas within philosophy is the ability to discern them. When Quine titled this paper he was asserting that there were a couple of ideas within empiricism that lacked a proper foundation. The title leads us to believe Quine has discovered something fundamentally wrong with empiricism. When Quine says, “One effect of abandoning them [the two dogmas] is, as we shall see, a blurring of supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism,” we can conclude that he is not dispelling the idea of empiricism rather; he is trying improve empiricism by removing something he believes is standing in the way.
The first thing Quine now needs to carry out (and he did just prior to the aforementioned statement) is announce what the two dogmas are and then dispel them. He starts with the assumed separation between analytic statements and synthetic ones. Those that are analytic seem to be those that are merely definitions or synonyms. The part that completely confounds me about analytic truths is the definition of the synthetic truths. Quine defines synthetic truths as “grounded in fact.” I would like to believe here that Quine is grossly misrepresenting the idea of analytic truths since the only option left would be a truth that is not grounded in fact or maybe on that is only a little grounded in fact. In spite of my inability to comprehend the idea of analytic truth that has ...
... middle of paper ...
...based on empirical knowledge yet they also wanted to be able to make logical assertions about the empirical knowledge. They wanted pragmatic empiricism. Quine did not allow the negative views of empiricism being merely a method of description stop him from developing his pragmatic theories. While it might at first seem that he simply rejected radical reductionism but in fact it was in his integration of the analytic into the synthetic that allowed him to accomplish the rejection.
Quine does not have two languages (synthetic/empirical vs. analytic/abstract) so Quine naturally would not have a reductionism that only allowed for one of those languages. Once you are able to start out with the idea that people are merely collections of empirical knowledge then you no longer have to compensate for the non-empirical or hyper-empirical (reductionism) aspects of arguments.
The debate between rationalist and empiricist philosophers looks at the nature of knowledge, and specifically, how we gain this knowledge. Rationalists and empiricists take opposite, and sometimes mutually exclusive, views on how knowledge is obtained.
In our time of uncertainty one of the most stable institutions is the school system for children. Thus, being a teacher and providing the most stable atmosphere along with providing the children with an education must be handled delicately. I believe a mixture of essentialism, progressivism, perennialism, behaviorism, and social reconstrctonism is essential in achieving those goals.
Unlike rationalists, empiricists believe that sense perception is the main source of knowledge. John Locke explained this by dividing ideas into 2 parts: 1) simple, and 2) complex. Simple ideas are based only on perception, like color, size, shape, etc. Complex ideas are formed when simple ideas are combined.
For instance, his view is strong in the way that utilizes empiricism to provide a skeptical insight on causality. It is refreshing to see an alternative perspective such as empiricism after reading Descartes and Leibniz. Yet, his use of empiricism may be his downfall as well, since even he states “simple ideas are not always…derived from the correspondent impressions.” Also, his argument that thought is bounded senses and experiences do not take into account metaphysical concepts like malleability.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
Although philosophy rarely alters its direction and mood with sudden swings, there are times when its new concerns and emphases clearly separate it from its immediate past. Such was the case with seventeenth-century Continental rationalism, whose founder was Rene Descartes and whose new program initiated what is called modern philosophy. In a sense, much of what the Continental rationalists set out to do had already been attempted by the medieval philosophers and by Bacon and Hobbes. But Descartes and Leibniz fashioned a new ideal for philosophy. Influenced by the progress and success of science and mathematics, their new program was an attempt to provide philosophy with the exactness of mathematics. They set out to formulate clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Their emphasis was upon the rational ability of the human mind, which they now considered the source of truth both about man and about the world. Even though they did not reject the claims of religion, they did consider philosophical reasoning something different than supernatural revelation. They saw little value in feeling and enthusiasm as means for discovering truth, but they did believe that the mind of an individual is structured in such a way that simply by operating according to the appropriate method it can discover the nature of the universe. The rationalists assumed that what they could think clearly with their minds did in fact exist in the world outside their minds. Descartes and Leibniz even argued that certain ideas are innate in the human mind, that, given the proper occasion, experience would cause...
Philosopher Robert Nozick believes in the entitlement theory. The entitlement theory states that, “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding...A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding…No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2” (NOTES).
Philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Buber both emphasize how the presence of others in our lives and the bonds which we create with them define who we are and affects our self-perception. Both have their own theory of how this occurs. I will begin by discussing Sartre’s perspective on the subject, and Buber’s stance will follow.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
In Quine’s essay “On what there is” he states that “from a phenomenalistic point of view, the conceptual scheme of physical objects is a convenient myth.” In this essay I will argue that Quine believes, from a certain perspective, that the made up idea of physical entities is a myth. Oftentimes, individuals use this as a way out of contemplating other possible perspectives that may make more sense but are harder to come to terms with. Essentially, based on what Quine is saying, we cannot be sure that material objects actually “exist.” The truth, he believes, is unknown and possibly unknowable. He comes to this conclusion after a comprehensive argument, dealing with multiple oppositions and arriving at what he believes to be the best option for how we should view existence.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
Rationalism and empiricism have always been on opposite sides of the philosophic spectrum, Rene Descartes and David Hume are the best representative of each school of thought. Descartes’ rationalism posits that deduction, reason and thus innate ideas are the only way to get to true knowledge. Empiricism on the other hand, posits that by induction, and sense perception, we may find that there are in fact no innate ideas, but that truths must be carefully observed to be true.
ABSTRACT: The notions of representationalism and antirepresentationalism are introduced and used in contemporary philosophical discussions by Richard Rorty to describe his and the neopragmatists' attitude toward traditional problems of epistemology. Rorty means that the history of philosophy shows that there are no final answers to the traditional questions about knowledge, truth, and representation; consequently, they should be rejected. Rorty thinks such questions should be eliminated from philosophy since there is no possibility to get outside of our mind and language. We cannot say anything about a mind-transcendent or language-transcendent, nonlocal or eternal reality. Hilary Putnam agrees with Rorty on this, but not with the conclusion that we should reject traditional philosophical questions. For Putnam, the epistemological questions are worthwhile asking and, although we cannot find the final correct answers, we should continue our investigations as if there were final answers. Our struggles with those problems can lead to refinements of the formulations and to cognitive developments. Putnam proposes a quasi-realism which is often called "internal realism." Rorty rejects every refinement of realism as still realism and believes that the questions of knowledge, truth, and representation lead to regresses ad infinitum or to circular reasoning.
...ing used as many were relying on experimental methods and the assumptions of positivists to produce explanations that were reductionist instead of holistic and looking at the whole environment and not just the person. The ideology was also criticised during this period as the values of individualism were arising rather than the sociologist ideology that had previously existed (Myers).
The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" (Theaetetus 152a). Thus, however I see things, that is actually true -- for me. If you see things differently, then that is true -- for you. There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things. Consequently, Protagoras says that there is no such thing as falsehood. Unfortunately, this would make Protagoras's own profession meaningless, since his business is to teach people how to persuade others of their own beliefs. It would be strange to tell others that what they believe is true but that they should accept what you say nevertheless. So Protagoras qualified his doctrine: while whatever anyone believes is true, things that some people believe may be better than what others believe.