Maybe you'd like Kant?

is there a combined theory that unites rationalism and empiricism? — EnsambleMark

Maybe you'd like Kant? — norm

:100:

The conflict between "Rationalists" and "Empiricists" is pretty much only a Modern era (i.e. pre-Kantian) historical thing that doesn't really exist anymore. The contemporary parallel of it would be more like Analytic vs Continental instead, but even that is already getting pretty dated.

The dated issue is a good mention. If I was in the OP's position, I'd probably benefit most by lots of link hopping for a big-picture-view of what's going on and zoom in on the stuff that grabbed me. The only mistake is to read something that bores you. Trust your juices!

For a strong enough reader, I think A Thing Of This World is great tour from Kant to Derrida. For someone with less experience reading philosophy, The Story of Philosophy is pretty great. It's where I was first exposed to Hume and Kant and it inspired my love for philosophy. Also Durant is just a good writer, with a narrating personality that adds to the book.

Welcome to TPF.

Spinoza (especially his three kinds of knowledge). Or Susan Haack (re: foundherentism).

Good luck.

wow, this is an active forum, ty 180 Proof for your welcome.

The Story of Philosophy is then an introduction to their respective theories?

Pfhorrest — Pfhorrest

you mentioned Analytic vs Continental instead, but even that is already getting pretty dated...

in your opinion, is that train of though fading and if so which direction is it heading?

I fell the two work together — EnsambleMark

This is closer to the matter.

Despite popular literature, Kant didn’t so much unite the two, as to show, beginning with himself, how they couldn’t have been separate in the first place. Kant didn’t add anything to the human cognitive system that wasn’t already there; he only informed as to its better use.

Rationalism and empiricism. Hmm.

Would naturalism be close to that? The definition of naturalism is something like: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations don't matter. At least naturalism uses extensively empiricism in the way of using the scientific method and using empirical study.

Perhaps the writings of Quine would be something that is looking for.

Isn't science precisely that combination of empiricism and rationalism?

you mentioned Analytic vs Continental instead, but even that is already getting pretty dated...

in your opinion, is that train of though fading and if so which direction is it heading? — EnsambleMark

The clash between Analytic and Continental philosophy seems to be fading, as more contemporary philosophers try to draw from both strands and work on some synthesis of them. There isn’t a clear consensus on a singular new way forward, but I think that’s going to be in the direction of Pragmatism.

I am a new member on this forum, I have started reading Ernest Becker's Denial of death, is there a combined theory that unites rationalism and empiricism? — EnsambleMark

Kantianism.

Would naturalism be close to that? The definition of naturalism is something like: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations don't matter. At least naturalism uses extensively empiricism in the way of using the scientific method and using empirical study. — ssu

Not at all. Naturalism is a caricature, a non-position. Empiricism and Rationalism are actual philosophical schools, naturalism is just a word atheists use when they want to sound sophisticated, when there's no content or meaning behind the term whatsoever.

Not at all. Naturalism is a caricature, a non-position. — Dharmi

Really?

Either you ignore or simply dislike Quine.

I don't ignore or dislike Quine, anymore than I ignore or dislike any other philosopher. Quine is just inconsistent with his own belief system.

He himself was a platonist, via his Indispensability Thesis. Yet, he's a "naturalist" also. He's just being inconsistent.

How so? Interested to hear your argument.

Well, for starters, believing platonic objects exist is not naturalism.

More than that, there is definition of what naturalism is. I've always been looking for one, there is not one.

Naturalism is a caricature, a non-position. — Dharmi

Another assertion without argument. A caricature (i.e. mere sophistry).

What else have you read?

There's nothing to argue against.

:point: Dunning-Kruger in full effect.

I doubt it, I have several degrees and I've probably read more books in the last week than you have in your entire lifetime.

But by all means, indulge me.

I have several degress ... — Dharmi

:roll:

Really? That's what you have to say? Don't waste my time. If you don't have a logical, philosophical, reasoned response to give, then you can go give an unreasoned, illogical, baboon mating call to some barn animal instead of wasting my time here.

:lol:

Don't waste my time. If you don't have a logical, philosophical, reasoned response to give, then you can go give an unreasoned, illogical, baboon mating call to some barn animal instead of wasting my time here. — Dharmi

I think nobody will waste their, sorry, your time.

Besides, we might get blinded by the sheer radiance of your vast knowledge, we ignorant mortals. :snicker: