I don't make that confusion, however the physical sciences's epistomology is a form of empiricism. There are a variety of empiricisms and a number of those include (demand) reason in addition to pure experience. The sciences are empirical. That doesn't rule out thinking about data or using deduction. You seem to be conflating a specific kind of empiricism with all of empiricism.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:37 pm Not empiricism which most people confuse with the physical sciences,
Except that is not a problem with Empiricism, though perhaps some empiricists think this.but reason about that same existence the sciences study is philosophy. The problem with empiricism is the tacit assumption evidence (existence) provides knowledge itself simply by being observed.
Yeah, this just is not true. Google science and empiricism.It doesn't. Knowledge (both scientific and philosophical) is the rational identification of what exists and the discovery of the nature of that which exists by means of concepts. Since no form of empiricism includes a rational epistemology (a correct explanation of what knowledge is) empiricism is useless.
The philosophers identified as empiricists all applied reason to what was experienced.
Right, though that's specious argument since Kant and Plato, and many others are not trivial footnotes in philosophy. I have no issue with someone saying that the positions held by idealists and others are not correct and then supporting their position. But I see no justification for saying it isn't philosophy.I have to say something here. I'm not trying to change anyone else's views or correct anyone else's thinking. I'm perfectly content for you to call anything you like philosophy. When philosophy is discussed as an academic subject, the corpus of philosophy will include everyone in history who wrote anything related to philosophy.
Well, Locke is considered the first modern empiricism and defender of empiricism. Aristotle is also often classed as an empiricist.When I use the word philosophy, I'm referring to what would be a correct understanding of the nature of those things philosophy as a discipline is concerned with, namely metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, and subcategories. As far as I'm concerned no philosopher in history has even correctly identified those categories, much less provided a cogent explanation of any of them. The only exceptions I recognize, with reservations, are Aristotle, Peter Abelard, and Locke.
So, if someone disagrees with your positions on those categories, it means any discussion of their ideas is not philosophy.To me, discussing any other so-called philosopher as philosophy is tantamount to discussing the ideas of alchemists and astrologers and calling it science. I regard all that passes as philosophy in academia as bunk.
So, that which agrees with your positions is philosophy and that which does not, is not. For me discussions between diverse ideas, disagreements, support, demands for clarification and evidence is philosophy, even with people I disagree with.
But I now have a better sense of your position. I also assume that you are using the word Empiricism idiosycratically. Which is fine, but it will continue to lead to confusions, I would guess.
Come on.Well, I can't help what someone else sees, and if that's your impression, I'm glad to own it.
I can't help what someone else sees, you say. They you agree that I was correct. wtf.
Jeez you saidIt was not my purpose, however, to make an argument,
When in fact you did not do this.I was comparing religion to what is supposed to be philosophy,
And your implicit argument is worthy of the religious types you are critical of. Here are a couple of examples of people who are religious, justifying their atrocious actions on their religions, so the Eastern religions or Eastern thinking cannot be philosophy.but provide an illustration of how absurd superstitions embraced by people produce disastrous cultures. The caste system is rampant throughout Southern India together with other Hindu outrages of witch I just provided a couple of examples. I could provide Muslim examples and Buddhist examples, as well, but It is recent praise of Vedic religions as philosophy I was interested in.
It's a crappy argument and functions as trolling and certainly shouldn't qualify as philosophy if you are going to throw Kant, Berkley, Plato and Hume out of philosophy. And, no, of course I don't expect fully fleshed out works of philosophy here online. But to post an op critical of the thinking or lack thereof of certain people when the post is essentially fallacious. Junk thinking thrown at what you consider junk thinking.
But ok, you weren't mounting an argument, you say. So, you were expressing an opinion, using terms in an idiosyncratic way. And this presumably is why you don't bother to respond to the idea of someone coming up with links where a scientist in the name of science commits an atrocity or a set of scientists. Because the fallacious nature of the implicit argument was never intended as an argument so it doesn't matter if it looks silly aimed the other way. I think classing this as trolling is fair, so I'll ignore you.
] to feast on the evil laden verses.