2
   

Is empiricism the epitome of dualism ?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 08:21 am
@argome321,
There was no admission intended on my part of what we both perceived.
Your use of the emotive word "rancid" implied a value judgement which I might not have made given my internal state.

The point is that there may be no such thing as "pure sense data". Traditional empiricism (based on naive realism) tends to assume that there is. But following Kant's distinction between noumena (things in themselves which we cannot access) and phenomena (things in the mind) philosophers (phenomenologists and existentialists) have tended to hold noumena as "hypothetical" at best.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 11:36 am
@fresco,
Quote:
There was no admission intended on my part of what we both perceived.
Your use of the emotive word "rancid" implied a value judgement which I might not have made given my internal state.


There you go again trying to redefine the language. Rancid is not an emotive.
word. Now something rancid may cause you to regurgitate, but in and of itself it isn't emotive
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 11:50 am
@argome321,
Laughing You should read Foucault ! He argued that even the phrase "Its a boy" as a birth announcement, is saturated with potential societal judgements and expectations.

We are going to have to differ about use of language and perception. I could do a supercilious rank pulling operation based on my research experience, but I won't. Hopefully I have perhaps simply given rise to a few questions in your mind about towing a "common sense" line. Whatever such a line is, "it ain't philosophy or psychology or linguistics".



argome321
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 11:59 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The point is that there may be no such thing as "pure sense data". Traditional empiricism (based on naive realism) tends to assume that there is. But following Kant's distinction between noumena (things in themselves which we cannot access) and phenomena (things in the mind) philosophers (phenomenologists and existentialists) have tended to hold noumena as "hypothetical" at best.


Yes, Sartre dedicated of large portion of his book "Being and Nothing" concerning Phenomenology. That we cannot know an object in an dof itself. But that has never been my position to argue that point one way or another.

I will be the first to admit the fallacy of absolute certainty. But that is how we live our lives as if we did possess absolute certainty. When in actually we, or more accurately I should say, at least intelligently we make decisions based on probabilities, something more or less likely to be as close to reality as we can perceive it to be.

Sometimes those decisions are made before we are even aware of them.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 12:01 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
You should read Foucault ! He argued that even the phrase "Its a boy" as a birth announcement, is saturated with potential societal judgements and expectations.
ou

I have read Foucault I'm not at all impressed.

Quote:
We are going to have to differ about use of language and perception. I could do a supercilious rank pulling operation based on my research experience, but I won't. Hopefully I have perhaps simply given rise to a few questions in your mind about towing a "common sense" line. Whatever such a line is, "it ain't philosophy or psychology or linguistics".




I think you have been pulling a supercilious rank operation, as you call it, since you've been posting.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 12:08 pm
@argome321,
As far as phenomenology and existentialism are concerned try a bit of Heidegger. A main commentator on him (Dreyfus) argued that Sartre got it all wrong.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 12:15 pm
@fresco,
Have you read Being and Nothing? If so, do you believe he got it wrong?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 12:32 pm
@argome321,
No. I've read Nausea. I see no problems with Dreyfus's analysis of Heidegger versus Sartre but we should take a circa WW2 zeitgeist into account for both.

Quote:
I think you have been pulling a supercilious rank operation, as you call it, since you've been posting.

Cool You ain't seen nothin yet!
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 01:06 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
You ain't seen nothin yet!

that would be fun
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 01:37 pm
@argome321,
Take it from me. This thread might be of marginal interest from the point of view of discourse analysis but as far its linguistic or epistemological content is concerned we have hardly entered the suburbs.

No matter. The intention of my opening post was to attempt to answer a specific challenge. Since the challenger has not shown up (as yet), and I am too lazy to regurgitate "elementary stuff" for you with respect to peripheral topics like the multiple functions of language, we are left having basically what is no more than "a nice chat".

BTW. I'm quite happy with "your decision making based on probabilities".
Whether this has any relevance to active perception is another matter.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2015 03:31 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
I think you have been pulling a supercilious rank operation, as you call it, since you've been posting.


Bingo.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Problems With Empirical Evidence - Question by medium-density
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 09:33:14