17 May 03
1 edit
I thought 'empiricism' was a generic term referring to the practice of conducting one's behaviour based on sense-data. I take it there is an actual set of beliefs by that name?
Rather than 'Indictment of empiricism', I should have said 'calling into question the frequent practice of observing stuff"...
18 May 03
Originally posted by bbarrDoes this mean we should not try?
There was no indictment of empiricism in "Appearance and Reality", just an attack on a particular theory of perception, called 'direct realism' by some, 'naive realism' by others, according to which the objects of our perceptual states are physical objects themselves. Russell recounts some familiar (even for his day) arguments attempting to show that th ...[text shortened]... e by my advisor, Lawrence BonJour:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/#s-d
18 May 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYes, there are a few core claims that typify the empiricist position, though different self-proclaimed empiricists differ in the details of their respective positions. Empiricists normally claim either that everything we know we know via sensory experience or that there are classes of propositions known independently of sensory experience, but these propsitions are true merely in virtue of their meaning (i.e., they are analytic statements, true by definition, tautologous, etc.) and thus don't constitute substantive knoweldge about the world. So this first claim amounts to the denial that there is a priori knowledge, and this is one major difference between empiricism and rationalism generally. The other major difference between the two camps is their position on innate knowledge. Rationalists have claimed that there are some concepts with which we come equipped. Empiricists claimed that this is bunk, and that at the very least the environment had to play some role in triggering the concept.
I thought 'empiricism' was a generic term referring to the practice of conducting one's behaviour based on sense-data. I take it there is an actual set of beliefs by that name?
Rather than 'Indictment of empiricism', I should have said 'calling into question the frequent practice of observing stuff"...
18 May 03
Originally posted by bbarrSo why do we need "substantive knowledge"
Yes, there are a few core claims that typify the empiricist position, though different self-proclaimed empiricists differ in the details of their respective positions. Empiricists normally claim either that everything we know we know via sensory experience or that there are classes of propositions known independently of sensory experience, but these propsition ...[text shortened]... unk, and that at the very least the environment had to play some role in triggering the concept.
The world is good.
GOD is good.
Amen.
18 May 03
Originally posted by bbarrThank you for that explanation...it seems Russell was a bit of an empiricist then, or at least was not at odds with the actual 'doctrine'.
Yes, there are a few core claims that typify the empiricist position, though different self-proclaimed empiricists differ in the details of their respective positions. Empiricists normally claim either that everything we know we know via sensory experience or that there are classes of propositions known independently of sensory experience, but these propsition ...[text shortened]... unk, and that at the very least the environment had to play some role in triggering the concept.
18 May 03
Originally posted by missleadThe point isn't why the knowledge is needed, but how knowledge of the world is possible, and why we're apparently justified in believing various things about the world. Put down the bottle and try to keep up.
So why do we need "substantive knowledge"
The world is good.
GOD is good.
Amen.
18 May 03
Originally posted by bbarrOk.Tell the world.
The point isn't why the knowledge is needed, but how knowledge of the world is possible, and why we're apparently justified in believing various things about the world. Put down the bottle and try to keep up.
This is not a weakness.
18 May 03
Originally posted by bbarrMy name is Diane, and I'm an alcoholic
The point isn't why the knowledge is needed, but how knowledge of the world is possible, and why we're apparently justified in believing various things about the world. Put down the bottle and try to keep up.
(15 years old)
When I first came to A.A., I couldn't have been an alcoholic. It was impossible at the age of 14!
I had my first drink at the age of six. Being the only girl out of three and being the youngest child, I could get my way. I now believe I was an alcoholic from the first drink, because from then on I set up my life in the alcoholic pattern. I lived in fear of the day, in hatred, in resentments, in a dream world. I would dream I had six closets full of clothes and all the girls were jealous of me. In real life, I was fat, overbearing, and jealous of others. I hated my mother because she would spank me and not let me go without a shirt,
like the boys.
We moved away from that town just before I entered fourth grade. I was really lonely. I had no friends, and I couldn't make any. Then I met kids who smoked, drank, and took drugs. My parents begged, beat me, and argued with me. But what the hell! They were the ones who had me and never wanted me. They were the ones who put me through all the years of misery. Now was the time to pay them back, I decided.
I started taking drugs and drinking. My self-pity caught fire. Booze and drugs helped me relieve it all. Wow! It was really weird. Sex also became very important, because I wanted love. Lots of love!I thought my homelife was the problem, so I started going to counselors, church, headshrinkers, the whole bit. It didn't work. So here came the booze again.
I always wanted to belong. Anything the group said to do, I did. But I didn't like it, and I wanted out. My bottom came up and hit me. I didn't go down and hit it.
I got in contact with A.A. through a doper friend. She just needed something to do, so she didn't stick around. I stayed. I liked the love that I got. I needed that love. I stayed in, drunk, wanting to be "a part of, not apart from."
Finally, after 11 months, I started working the program. Things began changing, and it was really beautiful. My relationship with my parents and other people is great. The love I receive, I pass along to still-sick alcoholics. God — my God — is very patient, thank goodness for that. I am now losing weight and feel fine. (I weighed 200 pounds.)
I still get some questioning looks from oldtimers, but I know I am an alcoholic, and that's all that counts. I feel rejected at times because the young people in our group are married and get together quite often, without me. God willing, in about four years I'll be married, too, and thenI'll remember to ask the single young person to join in.
My father is still drinking, but I have to "let go and let God." Maybe someday God will find him also. I am an alcoholic, and in two months I'll be 16.
18 May 03
Originally posted by missleadApparently Linda knows how to cut and paste:
My name is Diane, and I'm an alcoholic
(15 years old)
When I first came to A.A., I couldn't have been an alcoholic. It was impossible at the age of 14!
I had my first drink at the age of six. Being the only girl out of three and being the youngest child, I could get my way. I now believe I was an alcoholic from the first drink, because from then on ...[text shortened]... God." Maybe someday God will find him also. I am an alcoholic, and in two months I'll be 16.
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/default/en_about_aa_sub.cfm?subpageid=67&pageid=12
What a fraud.