surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
There is a distinction between rationalism and empiricism but they also share a commonality :
Because all knowledge claims have to be processed by the mind regardless of anything else
Sure, but why "
knowledge claims"?
Knowledge claims are not necessary to knowledge. I know I am in pain irrespective of any knowledge claim. I know I am in pain irrespective of what other people may think.
Empiricism is dependent on the mind for reasoning about propositions, but also and more fundamentally, for knowing the facts of our subjective experience on which all our beliefs about the material world are founded. Subjective experience seems necessary for the observation of the material world.
Rationalism is also dependent on subjective experience but not on what we take to be the fact of the material world.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
I would however question your definition of rationalism here :
No first person subjective claim can be rational if proof is required because proof does not apply in such a scenario
Proof is by definition the remit of deductive systems such as mathematics and syllogisms not that of individual minds
No. You are being influenced by the notion of proof in mathematics and the sciences. But the notion of proof is much more general than that.
Proof
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
The proof that I am in pain is the pain itself and I don't need any other proof or argument to be compelled to accept that I am in pain, and this irrespective of whatever other people may think.
What would be irrational in accepting that you are in pain when you are in pain?
Rationality is logic plus facts. Facts may be the subjective evidence which is only available to you, such as that you are in pain. Logic is obviously necessary as soon as we reason from basic facts but accepting subjective facts such as that you are in pain doesn't require to infer anything, and therefore doesn't require logic.
Walking in the street requires you to negotiate you way through obstacles. No formal reasoning is required and yet it is clearly a rational process. People who cross the street without paying attention to cars are not behaving in a rational manner.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
Therefore this cannot be said : Rationalism requires that the proof of your claim be an observation of your own mind
This can be said : Rationalism requires that your claim be as close as possible an objective observation of your own mind
The notion of objectivity implies a collective consensus on what is the case. It will be rational to abide by this consensus whenever you don't have any evidence contradicting it. It is a fact of life that the consensus is contradicted by individuals who acts on the basis of the evidence which is initially only available to them. I'm sure it was rational for Einstein to become convinced that Special Relativity was correct even when he was still the only person in the whole universe to know it. Consensus be damned.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
I say objective because if the mental state of your mind is compromised in any significant way then rational assessment is not possible
So just being able to determine an observation of your mind does not automatically mean that said observation will actually be rational
The mind is perfectly capable of irrationality just as much and so a distinction between the two has to be established - objective observation
But the consensus on what is objectively the case can be just as wrong and probabilities here don't help because we are unable to assess them in each case.
EB