PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
Then perhaps you could look up 'scientism,' on Wiki.
I know what the definition is. That's most definitely not what I am talking about when I talk about empiricism.
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
Philosophy exists because these problems exist. It is nobody's fault.
So you are necessarily claiming that problems came first, and philosophy came 2nd.
Can you explain to us what you think a "problem" is?
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
I don't know of any such questions.
So then all the philosophical problems have been solved?
Begs a question: Why do we need philosophy then?
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
Philosophy does not beg this question it attempts to answer it. Some philosophers do answer it.
But you just said "I do not know of any such questions". So has philosophy answered its own "why?" question or not?
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
Empiricism is usually associated with sensory data, not human experience. The data is empirical, the experience is not.
Distinction without a difference. The processing of sensory data is human experience. Computation.
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
I see. It seems unsurprising that you have no grasp of philosophy given that you think you already know all about it.
You can't seem to make up your mind. Do we need philosophy or not?
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing.
So then you have a methodology for answering all the questions philosophy poses.
And I can assume that it's not empiricism?
So what is it then?
PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
Of course I do. But I can't see the point in explaining this to someone who is so full of their own beliefs and ideas.
You don't want to check if your exit criterion is mis-guided? I can tell you... I know the truth.
That there is no Truth.