Let's Get All Philosophical Up In Here!

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Hello everyone. I recently started my A-Level Philosophy course, and while I've not learned masses, the subject really interests me. Aside from Rene (forgive me if I've spelled that incorrectly) Decartes, one of the first things I was told was about Empiricism and Rationalism.

Empiricists believe (to my understanding), that we are born as blank slates, and gain our knowledge through experience, and without that experience would not be able to reason anything related to it. Rationalists believe that there are certain innate ideas, and we reason our way out of problems, and would be able to do so without knowledge or experience. If I'm wrong in any big way, someone feel free to correct me.

I was wondering Escapists, which are you? An Empiricist, or a Rationalist? Why are you one of the two? Do you have any arguments that make the opposing theory seem less valid? I'd be interested to know!

 

[Ambi]

Can I be both? Can't we find out which is right by studying neuroscience? Isn't this like nurture vs. nature?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

To say we are entirely blank slates when we are born is just not true. We are all born with instincts, those are not learned from the environment. As soon as it is born a baby knows which cry's to make to get the thinks it needs, it knows where to get food from it's mother, it knows to look up into the faces of everyone that interacts with it in order to form a bond and reduce it's chance of being killed by that person. These are all interactions with it's environment and none of them need to be 'learned'.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Hello everyone. I recently started my A-Level Philosophy course, and while I've not learned masses, the subject really interests me. Aside from Reneé (forgive me if I've spelled that incorrectly) Decartes, one of the first things I was told was about Empiricism and Rationalism.

Empiricists believe (to my understanding), that we are born as blank slates, and gain our knowledge through experience, and without that experience would not be able to reason anything related to it. Rationalists believe that there are certain innate ideas, and we reason our way out of problems, and would be able to do so without knowledge or experience. If I'm wrong in any big way, someone feel free to correct me.

I was wondering Escapists, which are you? An Empiricist, or a Rationalist? Why are you one of the two? Do you have any arguments that make the opposing theory seem less valid? I'd be interested to know!

You're fine... except 'Rene Descartes'.

Anyway, I'll be honest and say that as far as philosophy of the mind, moral and ethical philosophies are concerned, I have no real fixed belief, I just gather aspects of each and hash them up. Suffice to say, Cynicism, Stoicism, (and while not wholly mutually exclusive to) Epicureanism and to a much lesser degree Sophism each have aspects that I think are worth following.

Having said that, such philosophy holds little true interest to me, as I prefer dealing with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. Abstract conceptualism...

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

To say we are entirely blank slates when we are born is just not true. We are all born with instincts, those are not learned from the environment. As soon as it is born a baby knows which cry's to make to get the thinks it needs, it knows where to get food from it's mother, it knows to look up into the faces of everyone that interacts with it in order to form a bond and reduce it's chance of being killed by that person. These are all interactions with it's environment and none of them need to be 'learned'.

Someone brought up that issue in class, and apparently instincts weren't really taken into account in Empiricism, they were just ignored and classed as something else.

 

[b3nn3tt]

To say we are entirely blank slates when we are born is just not true. We are all born with instincts, those are not learned from the environment. As soon as it is born a baby knows which cry's to make to get the thinks it needs, it knows where to get food from it's mother, it knows to look up into the faces of everyone that interacts with it in order to form a bond and reduce it's chance of being killed by that person. These are all interactions with it's environment and none of them need to be 'learned'.

Someone brought up that issue in class, and apparently instincts weren't really taken into account in Empiricism, they were just ignored and classed as something else.

Yeh, I consider instincts to be different to knowledge. To me, with the exception of instincts, empiricism just makes so much more logical sense. I don't see how anyone could acquire knowledge without first experiencing it.

EDIT: In fact, rationalists didn't really consider instincts either. It's just one of those things that neither side really focussed on.

 

[Bunnymarn]

At this point in time, I'm inclined to the real question isn't whether people are born as blank slates, but to what degree we are all born the same. I can't remember exactly, but there is some ism that deals with the proposition that if we are all put into the same circumstances, then we will invariably achieve the same outcome as anyone else. And whilst I believe there are exceptions to that, I think it's predominately true.

So, I don't agree with Empiricism. Rather, I think that we are born with certain traits (both physical and psychological), and from our first action, these will determine how we react and thereafter these innate dispositions will be conditioned throughout our lives. I guess it's the whole nature vs. nurture argument. I think our environment influences our 'nature' so much that our nature becomes blurred and rather insubstantial after a certain amount of time. I mean, for example, today slim women are attractive, but in the middle ages it was the bigger women with the child bearing hips that were desired - is what you find attractive born in or is it environmentally influenced? If the former, why the shift?

On the whole, I'd say I don't absolutely agree with either, but I'd just add that Empiricism seems to be a sense of nothingness, whereas Rationalism seems to be instinctual dispositions (correct me if I'm wrong, too). Perhaps greater exposure to these thoughts would change my opinion, who knows.

EDIT:

Yeh, I consider instincts to be different to knowledge. To me, with the exception of instincts, empiricism just makes so much more logical sense. I don't see how anyone could acquire knowledge without first experiencing it.

EDIT: In fact, rationalists didn't really consider instincts either. It's just one of those things that neither side really focussed on.

If it's just knowledge that's in question, then I think I'd be a bit more inclined to go with Empiricism.

 

[Thaliur]

Someone brought up that issue in class, and apparently instincts weren't really taken into account in Empiricism, they were just ignored and classed as something else.

Well, there you have it, then.
If one theory ignores proven facts, another must be true, so in this case, Rationalism wins.

I can't find the according studies right now, but it has been proven that toddlers instintively help people, even with no education to speak of (far before they are able to talk, shortly after they are barely able to walk). This was tested by putting a toddler and a person at a desk in the same room. The person at the desk would then drop a pencil by accident and pretend to be unable to reach it (by extending their hand towards the pencil and making a grabbing motion). The toddler would then get up, go to the desk and give the pencil to the person sitting there.


If I had to guess, I'd say Empiricism is the older idea, maybe from Greek times, while Rationalism was introduced at a later state, when people knew more.

 

[Richardplex]

To say we are entirely blank slates when we are born is just not true. We are all born with instincts, those are not learned from the environment. As soon as it is born a baby knows which cry's to make to get the thinks it needs, it knows where to get food from it's mother, it knows to look up into the faces of everyone that interacts with it in order to form a bond and reduce it's chance of being killed by that person. These are all interactions with it's environment and none of them need to be 'learned'.

The Blank slate doesn't refer to stuff like instict, it refers to such things like morals and social behaviour. I'm totally an empiricist, and also a bag-of-meat believer.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

It's a combination of the two. We're born with certain genetic predispositions (not just instincts), but our personality is mainly formed by experiences.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Someone brought up that issue in class, and apparently instincts weren't really taken into account in Empiricism, they were just ignored and classed as something else.

The Blank slate doesn't refer to stuff like instict, it refers to such things like morals and social behaviour. I'm totally an empiricist, and also a bag-of-meat believer.

Ah, I see. Well in that sense I guess I do believe we are born as blank slates, with no real morals or conscience until we are taught and conditioned to have them. However, this theory still has a whole in it. If we need to be taught to have morals, then who was the first teacher? Why did the first human beings develop a conscience when no-one before them had conditioned them too? Maybe there is still more to this than nurture.