Rationalism or Empiricism?

[Anonymous No.22960420]

Let’s settle this once and for all.

[Anonymous No.22960486]

grugg like big rock

[Anonymous No.22960489]

Neither has any answers.

[Anonymous No.22960494]

>>22960420
Yet another divide that the autists of the past fought fiercely over that has today been reduced to "yeah we use them both"

[Anonymous No.22960506]

>>22960420
Very pointless to have this debate after Kant and Hegel
>>22960494
Indeed, this. /thread

[Anonymous No.22960889]

>>22960420
Rationalism in physical reality
Empiricism in material reality
Reductionism in reality of current society
Transcendentalism in existential reality
Nondualism in spiritual reality
Darwinism in dealing with normies
Wholism in dealing with nature
Legalism in dealing with the small hat wearers
Structuralism in dealing with corporations
Logical positivism in dealing with 4chan
So on so on so on

[Anonymous No.22960975]

>>22960420
>>22960494
Rationalism is just an attempt to project empirically derived patterns onto gaps of the unknown

[Jim Theis No.22960982]

>>22960420
Are they not one and the same?

[Anonymous No.22960985]

Eugenic biopolitic is the only philosophic issue until the broken world is mended. Once a real world is established, then Rationalism can ascend.

[Anonymous No.22960998]

>>22960420
His opinions eventually result in David Hume and Darwin which means the government has the right to exterminate you if it feels like it

[Anonymous No.22961072]

>>22960420
Generals will never form individuals but individuals can form generals. This is a fact. Every time you thought a general became an individual it was actually the individual in it the whole time. Nothing can dispute this and this is why empiricism is objectively true.

[Anonymous No.22961101]

>>22960420
God of the gaps

[Anonymous No.22961175]

>>22960506
Kant and Hegel were both full of shit because intuitions don’t exist and immediacy doesn’t exist. Pure concepts don’t exist either. They have no real arguments for why these things exist because they were just dogmatists.

[Anonymous No.22961257]

"scientific" experiments can be tortured into saying anything.

[Anonymous No.22961282]

>>22960420
read kant

[Anonymous No.22961285]

>>22961175
>intuitions dont exist
Kants take kinda
>immediacy doesn't exist
Hegels point

Read

[Anonymous No.22961302]

>>22961257
>experiments
then you believe in astronomy since it doesn't require experiments?

[Anonymous No.22961305]

>>22961302
>Astronomy
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.22961497]

>>22961285
Kant claimed intellectual intuition doesn’t exist but his whole project is based on the notion that there is an a priori source of synthetic knowledge so I don’t see your point.

[Anonymous No.22961532]

>>22961175
intuitions exist objectively. you can recognize a square. intuition, though, is not defined but has be conceptually analyzed as immediacy, which only exists for things with a perceptual process. And so on.

[Anonymous No.22961858]

>>22961532
> you can recognize a square.
Doesn’t mean you have intuitions.

[Anonymous No.22961921]

Not literature.