/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22109652]

>British empiricists revolutionize philosophy
>Kant writes thousands of pages desperately trying to cope with the fact that they destroyed his rationalist Lutheran fairy-tale land
>Kant gets all the credit for modern philosophy
wtf is this bullshit? From now on I'm saying "post-Lockean" instead of post-kantian.

[Anonymous No.22109671]

>>22109652
Empirical science is the opposite of philosophy, dingus

[Anonymous No.22109673]

>>22109652
Why Locke instead of Hume?

[Anonymous No.22109679]

>>22109673
Locke's essay is less advanced but far more fertile. plus Locke was all about moderate knowledge, Hume's skepticism loses out in the end.

[Anonymous No.22109683]

Is it really possible to defend classical empiricism in the face of our current knowledge of evolution? It is pretty clear that humans and all living beings are not born with tabulae rasae but rather with a framework of inherited instincts that may, in the case of humans, warn that foul smelling food should not being eaten, that being in the dark of the night is dangerous, etc. And besides that, this framework really inputs in the way we perceive the world in regard to colors and spatial relations at the minimum. We know that because it's been discovered that different animals grasps sensible stimuli in different ways.

[Anonymous No.22109692]

>>22109679
also, obviously, Hume is mostly based on Locke
>>22109683
Locke accepts the existence of instincts. I don't know what you were trying to say in the latter part of that post. but if you add in semiosis, you can account for all kind of thought in an empirical framework.

[Anonymous No.22109704]

>>22109683
oh, I think I understood what you were saying. Locke also accepts that the capacity to receive sense is innate.

[Anonymous No.22109728]

“Empiricism” is the most retarded philosophy ever existed, eg i can say the sun is smaller than my finger and you can’t disprove me empirically, but only rationally.

[Anonymous No.22109732]

>>22109728
>hypothesize that the sun is smaller than my finger
>find a big rock on earth
>empirically observe that walking far away and/or putting my finger closer to my eyes makes the rock appear smaller than my finger
>empirically observe that the sun is very far away and my finger relatively very close to my eyes
>associate the two cases
>conclude that the sun is not necessarily the size of my finger

[Anonymous No.22109739]

>>22109652
Kant absolutely mogs Locke and Hume

>The celebrated Locke, for want of due reflection on these points, and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in experience, sought also to deduce them from experience, and yet proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt, with their aid, to arrive it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience. David Hume perceived that, to render this possible, it was necessary that the conceptions should have an a priori origin. But as he could not explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as necessarily connected in the object,—and it never occurred to him that the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were presented to it

[Anonymous No.22109743]

>>22109739
except Locke's indirect realism literally solves this, because it means that causality exists in the external world, and that explains how we learn causality and this allows us to make what kant thinks are leaps past experience.

[Anonymous No.22109757]

>>22109732
> >associate the two cases
yeah, that’s the rationalist part, retard. probably full empiricists (animals and anglos) think the sun is actually smaller than my finger.

[Anonymous No.22109766]

>>22109757
I agree, your strawman of empiricism is really dumb

[Anonymous No.22109767]

>>22109743
>causality exists in the external world
and then we're right back at Hume so you solved nothing

[Anonymous No.22109768]

>>22109767
Peircean scholastic realism solves it, I don't know what else to tell you

[Anonymous No.22109778]

>>22109768
please enlighten

[Anonymous No.22109790]

>>22109778
law or generality (thirdness) is inherent to the external world and it is an essential aspect not only of experience itself but of every occurrence there is. Hume doesn't refute this because he assumes that causality is not in experience but added to the mind, and also because using the concept of generality or law doesn't necessarily appeal to causality but to the retroductive-inductive method. and it's not the same as what Kant said because 1. he also thought it was in the mind and not in the actual processes 2. it isn't the same as being an innate idea any more than the ability to sense blue is an innate idea.

none of this will make sense unless you understand the logic of thirdness

[Anonymous No.22109796]

>>22109790
>none of this will make sense unless you understand the logic of thirdness
I have no idea what I'm looking at

[YKHN No.22109799]

>>22109732
>>22109728
You fucking retards, the sun is the width of a human foot.

>>22109757
Cohering experiences is against empirical principles?

>>22109679
Why do you think that it loses out? I think that as Kant pointed out, the habitual and inductive methods in positing causal necessity is yeah psychological and thus loses its universality, its ''force'' on human understanding. However, I do think it possible to circumvent this Kantian ideal by positing its source on language like Hamann did (I still need to think more about it but I also think that Schleiermacher has a point when he takes the Kantian understanding-sensibility divide to be derived from the source of the sacred and religious -- if we think about it, the religious is abstraction of nature; the natural is not mere nature, it is a token, like a manifestation, a predicate of something, and cause-effect relation in religious goes hand in hand with its predicate-subject relation in language).

>>22109739
>Kant mogging Hume
And then he was mogged by post-Kantian Humeans.

[Anonymous No.22109811]

>>22109799
>post-Kantian Humeans.
if you're talking about Schulze then no he didn't

[YKHN No.22109819]

>>22109811
Humeans, not only one.

[Anonymous No.22109824]

>>22109799
I think that forming a hypothesis and then verifying it somehow bypasses Hume's criticisms because it doesn't use Baconian style induction. since you know that you predicted it before it happened, rather than assuming it based on it happening in the past, the connection between experience and the hypothesis becomes concretized since it was present in your actual experience off the occasion, and based on Jamesian radical empiricism we should take this connection as real.

and obviously skepticism will always lose because of "common sense."

[Anonymous No.22109825]

>>22109819
well if their "mogging" is essentially the same as Schulze's then still no

[YKHN No.22109854]

>>22109824
But you assume grounds on which to base these hypotheses. Also, Hume addresses this point regarding common sense.

>>22109825
Schulze is the one I know the least among the post-Kantians referred.

[Anonymous No.22109881]

>>22109854
wdym? the process of coming up with a hypothesis may be based on classical induction, but it theoretically doesn't matter where the hypothesis came from as long as you can verify it. it's a mystery how we know how to come up with relevant hypotheses, for example, since there could theoretically be infinite ways to explain any situation, yet we somehow can narrow it down to the ones that work.

[Anonymous No.22109915]

>>22109881
>but it theoretically doesn't matter where the hypothesis came from as long as you can verify it
Why not?
>here could theoretically be infinite ways to explain any situation
But does not inductive reasoning narrows it down?

[Anonymous No.22109932]

>>22109757
>fly to sun
>empirically observe its huge

[Anonymous No.22110166]

>>22109790
>law or generality (thirdness) is inherent to the external world
How would one give a demonstration of this proposition in light of Kant's transcendental aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.22110201]

the result of anglophobia

[Anonymous No.22110238]

>>22110166
the transcendental aesthetic would not have a corresondence to pierce's concept of law since the aesthetic is concerned only with space and time as the idiosyncratic way humans immediately gain data from their senses. The concept of law would corresond instead to the transcendental analytic where the various ways the human mind connects the data from senses with space and time to form a single conscious identity and coherent lawful experience is treated.

[Anonymous No.22110286]

>>22109739
Kant was racist. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.22110288]

Now back to reality : . Thoughts are put on a pedestal only by theist or atheist rationalists...rationality is a mental construct by rationalists (read gurus) to pass their brain farts as true. The reality is that there is imagination and the dichotomy imagination-rationality is a fantasy by mental midgets. There is no rational thoughts, there is only schizo thoughts. There is no magical rational thoughts which will tell which thoughts is rational or schizo.It's all schizo. This is why rationalist vermins will always lose against the empiricists.

[Anonymous No.22110341]

>>22109652
This is the worst thread ive ever read.. day ruined.

[Anonymous No.22110408]

Hume was so devastating to the rationalists that he turned the germans schitzophrenic

[Anonymous No.22110466]

>>22109824
Wasn’t common sense realism Reid’s thing?

[Anonymous No.22110473]

Why did the empiricists never go outside?

[Anonymous No.22110480]

>>22109757
most flat earthers are anglos

[Anonymous No.22110485]

Kant absolutely revolutionized philosophy more so than Locke, but Locke is basically the grandfather of the United States, which is way more cooler and important

[Anonymous No.22110644]

>>22109652
Empiricism leads to utilitarian ethics which leads to a soulless humans. Nietzsche was right about that

[Anonymous No.22110664]

>>22110644
empiricism and Nietzsche will result in the same conclusion since they're both relativism in its logical conclusion, my gripe with these are the people who follows these worldviews and are bitching when it all ends to ruin and not some utopianistic BS

[Anonymous No.22110753]

>>22109824
You don’t know what Baconian-style induction is, nor does your empirical method deal with the root of Hume’s criticism with observed phenomena lacking “necessary connections.” You’ll never have granular vision of the totality of mechanisms involved in any single interaction. And even if you did, it wouldn’t be possible to know for sure through observation alone.

[Anonymous No.22110776]

locke is the proto-shitlib

[Anonymous No.22110906]

>>22110286
>Kant was racist.
based

[Anonymous No.22111566]

>>22109652
This thread is looking very grim.