Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Anti-empiricism

  1. #1
    chairpersonality Holon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    O,!C,I;IEI
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Anti-empiricism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

    Empiricism
    is a theory of knowledge which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism, and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.
    I'm wondering if anyone identifies with empiricism, or is opposed to it, or even considers themselves an anti-empiricist.

    Lately I've been considering my conflict with a very scientistic friend in terms of empirical vs idealistic. I'm fairly open to experience, and this individual manifests many of the "signs" of being closed to experience. He, and most of my peer group, reject any idealistic adjuncts to the story of "science is everything, everything we can know has been reduced and modelled". (I'm understanding why it was so profound for the mystic I met a while ago to have met a fellow "para-scientist": an individual who believes in science where it can produce knowledge, but seeks other methods elsewhere).

    Due to my education, I used t be very scientistic, but the more plants I ingest, and the more life-and-death, altered consciousness, and communal experiences I have, the more I think that science has a distinguished role in scientific knowledge, but is utterly irrelevant to the various forms of knowledge that humans might be able to have. I always hold the possibility that plants and spirits can "talk" to us, and that synchronicity "exists" as a potential, while people around me reject it off-hand due to their narrative of scientism....

    scribbles in the dark

  2. #2
    chairpersonality Holon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    O,!C,I;IEI
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I do; but I think I don't. People seem to react to patterns: things that fit and things that don't. I like to think I'm sceptical of a convenient narrative of scientific explanation. I think there's more out there, especially when plants have talked to me, or inherently nonreductive events have occurred.

    scribbles in the dark

  3. #3
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    empiricism is helpful, but sometimes you need to go deeper.

  4. #4
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Grain of a Song of Sand View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

    I'm wondering if anyone identifies with empiricism, or is opposed to it, or even considers themselves an anti-empiricist.

    Lately I've been considering my conflict with a very scientistic friend in terms of empirical vs idealistic. I'm fairly open to experience, and this individual manifests many of the "signs" of being closed to experience. He, and most of my peer group, reject any idealistic adjuncts to the story of "science is everything, everything we can know has been reduced and modelled". (I'm understanding why it was so profound for the mystic I met a while ago to have met a fellow "para-scientist": an individual who believes in science where it can produce knowledge, but seeks other methods elsewhere).

    Due to my education, I used t be very scientistic, but the more plants I ingest, and the more life-and-death, altered consciousness, and communal experiences I have, the more I think that science has a distinguished role in scientific knowledge, but is utterly irrelevant to the various forms of knowledge that humans might be able to have. I always hold the possibility that plants and spirits can "talk" to us, and that synchronicity "exists" as a potential, while people around me reject it off-hand due to their narrative of scientism....
    The bolded contradicts the prefacing definition of empiricism, which is what you're attributing to your friend I gather.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •