Why you should also hate Rationalism.

[Alan]

This is not a thread like others. I would wish it would create a meaningful discussion, but I know better than that. Just listen and don't feel offended when I say your opinion is objectively stupid because I warned you beforehand.

At the very least, you should understand here that I am not talking about being rational; I am talking about the philosophical school of thought called Rationalism (see? more than half of you didn't know that and had you stated your opinion you would have looked ridiculous already)
I hate rationalism and favor empiricism.

Rationalism is a philosophical thought best exemplified by Descartes and many modern (do not read as contemporary) continental philosophers.
It is the idea of "I think therefore I am." The idea that anything and everything that can e known comes through introspection, as the senses can betray us. There is by definition an unbridgeable chasm between the mind and the external world.
The contemporary pseudophilosophical pop babble is obviously: We can never be sure what is real and isn't!
The even more offensive conclusion from that is: Because we can't be sure what is real and what isn't, everything goes!
See why I'm talking about this? Why it's relevant that you people know this?

The philosophical justification for this is actually pretty elegant, but resumed to a high-school level in short paragraphs, this is the point:
Descartes said "I think therefore I am" as a way to explain that we can never be certain our mind does not play tricks on us. He proposes that we assume there is an evil god that betrays us and makes our senses lie to us. If this were the world, at least we would be sure that we are perceiving, even if what we perceive is false. From there we can reason other things that must be as true by definition, and these are the universal truths of the world.

Immanuel Kant agreed with empiricists that knowledge must come through experience by the senses, but he still said that there is no way of knowing sense perception is true. Therefore there has to be a frame in which we interpret sense perception to make anything meaningful. This frame is the necessary conditions for sense perception, without which we wouldn't be able to interpret empirical manifestations. We can never know "The thing itself (Das ding an sich)" but we can make an internally consistent interpretation of the world thanks to meaningful a priori conditions we all understand as true (like space and time)



Are you following me so far? If so, keep going. If not, fuck off you illiterate twat.

The problems with these two philosophers (it is not really necessary to talk about other rationalists) is pretty simple:


First of all, I say that both of them confused epistemological issues with metaphysical issues *hint hint*
In fact, Kant would be completely right and I would consider myself a Kantian if his Critiques dealt only with epistemology and not metaphysics. Sometimes Kant can be interpreted as such, but there are many hints that he was speaking about metaphysics. Descartes has no excuse.

Descartes says that all we can be sure if we can't be sure of anything else is that "I think"
This is true. But his emphasis was on I.
You CAN'T be sure about the I just like that. You can be sure of the proposition "I think" but only insofar as it is true that "something thinks"
Perceiving firsthand that something thinks is not in any way a manner of assuming that that something is the subject.
Wittgenstein explained how if we change the language of the actual proposition we can be sure, there is no logical way of arriving to the conclusion that we are a subject that perceives.

As for Kant, I would argue nonstop about his conception of a synthetic a priori but that's not important right now. All I need to argue against to argue against his bent on rationalism is jut the idea that "we can't know the thing in itself"
It is quite simple in fact.
Kant, like Descartes and any other rationalist, would say that you cannot bridge the world in itself to our perception of the world. In fact that is the simplest qualifier of whether you're a rationalist or not.
But that's just not true.
I agree that sense perception and empirical data are incomplete and maybe even false, but it does not mean that they are forever divorced from the world in itself.
It is clear that our senses are faulty; we can only see a small range in the spectrum of light, for example. But if we see ANYTHING, then it is because what we are seeing is an incomplete perception of the actual world. Even if what we saw was false, it could only be false in relation to the world.
You do not need a complete impression of the world in itself to know that there is a world itself; you only need sensoral perception that is perceived by virtue of its being a part of the world. If it weren't a part of the world, how could you perceive it? It has to have a certain degree of truth with the world outside of you, however small.


If I didn't explain something clearly, please tell me, but the argument is clear. Kant created his idea of a necessary frame of meaningful experience because of "necessity"
Even we know how stupid it is to talk about a philosophical manifestation just because you NEED it to make sense of your other beliefs.
A necessary frame is only necessary if you don't realize that as incomplete a sense experience is from the whole of reality; it is still a part of the world. There is truth and then there is accuracy.
Talk about the primacy one internally consistent interpretation of the world in itself against another internally consistent interpretation of the same world, but don't talk about the reality of the world in itself.
What is real is what IS; and that's the world. Arguing whether that world is real or not doesn't make any fucking sense unless you take as premise that what is real is what is important, and isn't that precisely what you were trying to argue against?

[KontanKarite]

Dude, I think you may have wasted your time with this post. BUT, a good read. I liked it.

[Saya]

It was a good read, although I hate Descartes enough for you to say "rationalists are wrong because Descartes was one."

I only had to read his proof of God (from Discourse On The Method) in the philosophy class I had, and write a paper on why I disagree with him. It sucked all the fun I was having out of the course. I was not as intelligent as you, although I did refrain from calling him stupid like our professor asked us to.

[ssj_goku]

tl;ddr

I think therfor I WIN!

[HumanePain]

I was about to agree with your reasoning until you said, instead of something profound, this:

"But that's just not true."

AH! I SEE! Ok, that justifies your argument! Because not only is it not true, it's just not true! You win.

But seriously, I agree if if my understanding is correct, when I summarize your post as:

OK so the I/O stack through which our data arrives may not be fully known, and may have internal biases and even modulations (the brain corrects vision for example, so we don't see everything upside down even though in reality, the image is upside down on our retinas), but ultimately the final and distilled data that arrives at our brains is the same for each of us, i.e. going through the same I/O stack, and so we can still define reality in an apples to apples fashion and so can still operate on the data delivered and presented as reality.

Do I understand your apples correctly?

[Alan]

Almost. Using your example of retinas, let's suppose that someone did see the world as being upside down to us.
The important thing is that even though this person is seeing the world different than us, it is because of sense experience which does belong to the world. In this example what is alike in both perspectives is more obvious, but it is also true that regardless of how obfuscated one's perspective of the world might be relative to what's considered real (epistemologically speaking, of course; I'm not talking about ethics), it has to be based on the actual world, and therefore there is no reason to doubt that something objective exists.

[Cruel Intentions]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I was about to agree with your reasoning until you said, instead of something profound, this:

"But that's just not true."

AH! I SEE! Ok, that justifies your argument! Because not only is it not true, it's just not true! You win.

Kinda have to agree with Humane on that particular point, Alan.

Also, You could argue therefore that dreams or other mental projections are real. You perceive them, however false. While dreaming you are still receiving, to all intents and purposes, sensory information. You can only be sure it was a dream after you've woken up.

You might realise it's a dream when something's out of place but your argument - so far - can not deny that dreams are, to an extent, real. Your brain senses and perceives them, even if it would perceive differently to being awake. The perception in question may be entirely fictional, but what stops it being, to all intents and purposes, real while you are perceiving it?

However, apart from that, I'm inclined to agree with you and thank you widening my knowledge of the subject.

[JCC]

ITT: Alan is engulfed by his own ego.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by JCC

ITT: Alan is engulfed by his own ego.

That's pretty much something I take apriori these days...

[Solumina]

That is what happens to philosophy majors they either end up constantly drugged out or they think they have more clarity in their world view than everyone else.

Not so say that I dislike Alan or that I think these boards are no place for deep discussions, that isn't the case, it would just be nice to see him lighten back up a bit and remember that his opinion and views aren't absolutely perfect.

[vindicatedxjin]

I'm sure with so much focus on one topic...you can't help but have an ego high.

[Saya]

And when its your major (or is it your minor, Alan?) you tend to want to talk about it a lot but its kinda hard to work into everyday conversation.

Its why I post a lot when we talk about eastern religions, somehow, at parties and get togethers, its hard to work in conversation.

"What a hilarious drinking story! Say, did I ever tell you how Ashoka The Great contributed to the spread of Buddhism?"

[Ben Lahnger]

Rationalism is, among other things, very self-serving - the term that comes to mind is mental masturbation - and yet its greatest proponents seem blind to that self-serving nature.

Also, I don't "hate" Rationalists. They actually kind of amuse me.

[Alan]

I think only Kontan and Ben seem to understand why I wrote this. Yet no one raised an eyebrow when I complained about post-modernism.
"Too many words! This must be so pretentious!"

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I think only Kontan and Ben seem to understand why I wrote this. Yet no one raised an eyebrow when I complained about post-modernism.
"Too many words! This must be so pretentious!"

Dude, there's that ego again.

I understand why you wrote it, I just like making fun of you.

[Alan]

I wasn't referring to you; I understand you. I mean those who think this thread came without context to other discussions in the boards.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

That's pretty much something I take apriori these days...

Uh, hey Despanan, it's A PRIORI. Two words, bro.
I should remind you guys that I'm a Classics major. You know, Latin and Greek. That's my major. I take classes in the Classics department. I talk to Classics professors, and they're very friendly towards me. I'm doing an honors thesis.

AMO
AMAS
AMAT
AMAMUS
AMATIS
AMANT.

Just thought you guys might want to see the first conjugation endings of amo, amare (to love) in the present tense, active voice, and indicative mood. Not very impressive, you say? Everyone knows that, you say?

AMOR
AMARIS
AMATUR
AMAMUR
AMAMINI
AMANTUR.

Passive, bitches.

[Despanan]

Proper latin is for fags and communists.

I make up my own latin. I call it Kickasstin (C)

It is 10% sweeter than regular latin, and registers 2 whole blunts higher on the George Clinton Funk Scale.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Wouldn't Communists despise Latin?

[Saya]

How would you know that, comrade?

[PortraitOfSanity]

I dunno, something tells me that in regarding religion as an evil force, somehow a dead language associated with religion specifically, would also be despised.

[Despanan]

Uh, hey Despanan, it's A PRIORI. Two words, bro.
I should remind you guys that I'm a Classics major. You know, Latin and Greek. That's my major. I take classes in the Classics department. I talk to Classics professors, and they're very friendly towards me. I'm doing an honors thesis.

Well, that explains your playwriting.

ZING!

Thanks folks I'll be here all night.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well, that explains your playwriting.

ZING!

Thanks folks I'll be here all night.

I'm a double major in playwriting actually.
TWO MAJORS. TWO THESES. TWO FACULTIES WITH WHOM I HAVE DEVELOPED A RAPPORT. TWO METRIC TONS OF BRAIN MATTER. TWO IN THE GOO ONE IN THE POO.

[Despanan]

Dude,

You ruined the joke.

RUINER!

P.S. Wanna hang out with me and Kontan in the east villiage tomorrow night?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Dude,

You ruined the joke.

RUINER!

P.S. Wanna hang out with me and Kontan in the east villiage tomorrow night?

I have a show at 8:30 tomorrow night. Afterwards I intend to get trashed, and after that I intend to get laid. You guys can possibly join me in the former activity, depending on your plans.