I'm reading Locke's Essay on Human Understanding and Leibniz answer to this. Anyone who has read the same text(s) that wants to discuss it? — Tiaclarice
It is one of the best books of philosophy ever written in my opinion — javi2541997
John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. — Dharmi
John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. I read all of these guys in my last semester in undergrad, and I read them before that also, a long time ago. — Dharmi
Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. — Athena
Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. — Xtrix
Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. — Dharmi
But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.
So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa. — javi2541997
Let's try to avoid simplistic labels.
— Xtrix
That is like agreeing to meet and not being specific about the time or place. The word "word" is a label and we can not know what we are talking about without them. — Athena
Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. These terms were not used by the aforementioned men themselves, are not very well defined, and do little except help philosophy undergraduates pass multiple-choice exams. — Xtrix
I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. — Wayfarer
I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. Furthemore, that Locke's (and Hume's and a few others) empiricism is the most influential strand of English-speaking philosophy in the Anglosphere. — Wayfarer
Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity. — Athena
And I can pry open a can of paint with a screw driver, although I shouldn't because it may wreck the tool. And that my bias: Aristotelean rationalism, such as it is, for the support of religion an abuse of Aristotelian rationalism. But on this I welcome correction. Please correct.Aristotle's rationalism.... can support religious arguments, — Athena
I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars.
— Wayfarer
They aren’t. When they are, they do not apply to these men. Unless of course you don’t read them and are forced to use conventional shorthands. In which case, that’s fine. But useless otherwise. — Xtrix
More precisely, we're reading Jonathan Bennetts facilitated text from 2004. — Tiaclarice
We still have the conflict of empiricism and relationalism. Rationalism can support religious arguments, science/empiricism can not. — Athena
I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason. — javi2541997
Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix
Well, true, but it's not limited to that. In my view, very few understand philosophical rationalism in our culture because empiricism is so deeply embedded. — Wayfarer
Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity.
— Athena
Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix
One more thought, our notions of beauty are related to our ability to recognize patterns, things that are symmetric and in harmony are more appealing. — Athena
It was Locke's phrase is that men are born 'tabula rasa', a blank slate, on which knowledge is inscribed by experience. Locke is a textbook example of empiricism and his work set the model for it. — Wayfarer
Xtrix, think of it as the natural evolution of philosophy. — god must be atheist
Where did I imply that I thought that they were imbeciles? — Wayfarer
Google the term 'empiricist philosophers', and they are the top two names! — Wayfarer
Basically you're casting yourself in the role of philosophy lecturer, trying to set the poor newbie straight, who's being fed useless disinformation by her university. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.