Aaaaa

Great way to word it

I know that life follows a metaphysical process in which two distinct ideas are both true but need each other to accomplish whatever said goal. Yin & Yang almost

@@beabadoobeepo thank you.

I learn more toward Empiricism, but this is a good argument.

Rationalism is trial and error Empiciricsm is taking things at face value

Happy this video helped :)

I have some doubt

@@stefano1405 what doubt

Perhaps you should do your reading before class?

@@Brian-ro7st lol fr tho

You're very welcome, thank you for watching the content and we are glad you enjoy :)

You're welcome, glad we could help.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed :)

Great suggestion, this is something we will look into.

Thank you!

May I ask you something

@@stefano1405 yes

@@GottfriedLeibnizYT what is empiricism and limits of rationalism

@@stefano1405 empiricism: the doctrine that knowlege originates from sense experience. Classical rationalism where pure reason is utilized has no clear limits, I guess. You can dive deep into metaphysical discourse as long as your argumets are valid and no one doubts your premises.

@@GottfriedLeibnizYT but won't there always be uncertainty in metaphysical discourse and if someone has no arguments against you still you could be wrong about actual reality (possible right) and what's your take in direct experience

So great to hear, glad we can help you on your philosophy journey :)

Hi something I want clarity on please help

same

Thank you, glad you are enjoying the content 😀

Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching.

You're welcome, glad you found this useful.

Yeah I feel the same view. But this is mostly because my class is having a debate and I'm on the Empiricism side of the debate and l would have to gather counter arguments for certain points Rationalism has.

😅😅🤣🤣

@@JustEvelynAndArt who won the debate.

@@saab-xq8lc Immanuel Kant

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.

I would say the opposite

@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 a healthy dose of rationalism and a dash of empiricism?

@@markaponte7057 Nah, onnly rationnalism with some empiricism.

@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 gotcha

​@@dzdawlatzwamel9795Nah, only empiricism. It's literally what science operates on. If you can't prove something, it is pointless to even bother considering it.

Yeah it is.

How so?

Great to know, glad you liked the video :)

Correct !

why not regular genetics ? the fear of falling for example is programmed through evolution

You're welcome, glad we could help.

Because almost all of them don't know about epistemology and what is above science and the other ways to gain knowledge. They know nothing but "science" which is "empirical science".

Could you please explain how an empiricist would differ in their beliefs to those which were explained in the video? I'm just starting to question the difference between rationality and empiricism so I don't want a straw man of either side to cloud my judgement

@@BMTroubleU I respect your caution about not making a misjudgment. To make stuff clear instantly, remind yourself that we are talking about PURE empiricism vs PURE rationalism. Both alone are flawed and make our intellect limited. How? Well, pure empiricism disregards everything that we do not experience with our 5 senses as empty talk. The problem with pure empiricism is that if we apply it alone, we would have to let go of a big portion of math for most of it cannot be proven via our senses. Example: we know that if u move with numbers 2 by 2,every number u land on is divisible by 2, but can we prove it? Can we experiment it on ALL numbers? No, but it is true. Another example is the form/shape of atoms, which is something nobody witnessed, but we know roughly how they look. Light's speed is immeasurable, the speed of light we know isnt the speed of light going from A to B, but from A to B and back to A. (u can check that btw, most ppl dont know that). Nobody saw electrons move in wires to creare electricity, nobody saw gravity etc. For example some say that they wont believe in god unless they can see it, and that is flawed because based on that concept, u cant believe in the existence of atoms, gravity, electricity, and not even ur great grandfather, because u never saw these. Through pure empiricism we cannot know any of these and a lot more significant stuff. Pure rationalism is based on logic and and the mind. It is what gives birth to math as we know it today, it is the logic u use to add 2 infos together to get to a third info. Example: stuff fall on the ground. So something is either pushing them to the ground or the ground pulling them to it. When we get further from the ground (via rockets) we escape this power and so we know that there isnt something pushing us to the ground but the ground itself pulling us to it. Then we called that gravity. Through pure empiricism, this is nonsense, for yes u saw the consequence of it (the fall) but not the reason or gravity itself nor the thing in the earth pulling us, but rationally u can conclude all these stuff. So both schools ON THEIR OWN are flawed and bounded. But using them together opens vast doors of knowledge and u can even prove the existence of God that way.

@@Dexiteros @X Y Ok, so it seems to me that you're making the point that these seemingly opposing views are not in conflict, but are compatible depending on the context. Makes sense to me. Fluid dynamics and human psychology are both great explanatory systems in their own contexts and there is very little overlap so people are happy to concede their coexistence. I suppose there might be an imaginary friction point between rationality and epistemology because there is such a large overlap in potential explanatory power. I'm interested to hear you say that by using both rationality and empiricism we could prove the existence of a God. If you don't mind, would you please let me know what your best argument is in support of gods existence?

​@@BMTroubleU First of all let's agree on some terminology, there are 2 types of beings: 1. Contingent being: a being such that if it exists, it could have not existed. Like you and me and this computer and the planets and the sun and the universe etc., they could have not existed, and their existence is the result of what caused them. 2. Necessary being: a being such that if it exists, it cannot not exist. And they are no result of anything. they are beginningless. You can conclude that contingent beings are ones that depend on whatever caused it. For example, the apple has been eaten by me, this event needs me to have existed in order for it to take place. I exist, I could have not existed, so I am a contingent being that relies on that which resulted in it, that are, in this case, my parents. My parents who are contingent beings rely on their parents resulting in them in return. Hopefully, my point is clear until now. Now if you keep following this track of events you will eventually reach the universe itself and the big bang, for they are contingent beings who could have not existed. So they rely on something outside of the universe, a cause that is causeless, an absolute 1st cause, a necessary cause that has no beginning but is the mother of all beginnings. Okay but what makes that necessary cause, whatever it is, a god?! Good question. We know the cause is beginningless and necessary and absolute because we proved that, but in order to say that furthermore this cause is god, this needs further supports or else it is a leap of blind faith. Alright, let's see what qualities this cause has: 1- It is beginningless, eternal. One that everything depends on its existence while it itself relies on nothing to exist. 2- We know that the universe happened after not having have happened. Just like your fridge not having apples for some time, and then at one time you opened it and found some apples in there, you know that since the fridge at some time didnt have apples, and now it does, someone must have willed to have apples and so brought some. Meaning the cause we are talking about willed the existence of the universe after the universe not having existing before it existed. 3- The universe is scientifically in so much order and significantly unique, not only in the sense that it is impossible to have existed mathematically and probability-wise, but more so in its detailed characteristics. (And this not me talking, but cosmologists, mathematicians and astrophysicists.) So we know that this first and necessary cause is extremely powerful, extremely capable, extremely knowing and extremely wise for creating not only life, but even consciousness. Eternal, Will, power, knowledge, wisdom, are all attributes of that necessary and absolute cause. So it is only fair to say that it is god. It's like leaving your house for 3 days and you return to find a sophiticated painting better than the Monaliza painted on your room's door after it not having been there before you left. It existing after not having existed, the complexity and knowledge and accuracy and uniquness all leave no room for doubting whether it was indeed human being who caused this masterpiece on your wall. This argument for the existence of God is a cosmological argument that utilizes scientific facts, rationality and logic to deduce the conclusion. It is not fallacious in the sense that it relies on the unknown or to explain what science couldn't; if anything, the argument is based on what we know using science, in conjunction with logic and intellect.

Yes that’s exactly what i tought

damn,it feels good that i actually understand this because we share a same thought😆epistemelogy is mind twisting man

Pi is a logical deducation from the combination of circumference and radius, therefore it is rationalism and not based on a sensory experience.

Incorrect, that is the discovery of pi. Which now can be proven axiomatically by reason alone.

Are you calling John a stoner lol

Because all blank slates are the same. Blank. Whatever you do to one blank slate would have the same effect as if you did the same to another blank slate. Since we all have different outcomes to external experience it would imply that we are not blank slates when coming into the world as empiricism suggests.

@@user-dl8cw3yd3e That would only be implied if every blank slate had identical experiences, and/or more importantly, if the different outcomes could be explained specifically by innate knowledge, of which there is zero evidence for. Rationalism has zero ground to stand on, empericism has some.

@@Professionallayman I suppose you’re not wrong. Tabula Rasa is problematic tho. Maybe innate knowledge is less evident in humans because we’re civilized and have order but it’s seen in animals who are left alone at birth. How does a sea turtle born on land know to head for water? I think reproduction has a lot to do with innate knowledge as well.

Glad we could help :D

You're welcome, thank you for watching.

A cat knows that a bird or squirrel is something to hunt without ever having another cat to demonstrate it. Instincts are rudimentary tools that get built on top of.

Granted, perception and learning does in fact exist. That doesn't prove anything. Even apart from instinct, an argument can be made for processing knowledge. We can only react and learn from perception through... reason. See where I'm going?

@@ConceptHut I can't be sure of it if you think deeply you are assuming that they don't learn it from there surrounding but than again it comes under evolutionary biology not some god given crap right

@@gagehowe1960 but initially a baby is a blank slate than as with time he generates more impression than he starts using his perception for that knowledge isn't it so it is a interchange of both so the claim that knowledge come from senses how much distorted it may be is correct isn't it but not denying the role of conclusion or inference

@@gagehowe1960 not replying

You're welcome!

But then is it not an assumption that other ducks exist in the first place?

You're very welcome!

Good question. I'd like to know this as well.

Rationalism doesn’t exclude you from using sense data, it just doesn’t use it as a basis for epistemology. Clearly a unknown physical object is better found using empirical data, but that doesn’t mean that you can have metaphysical discussions using the same method.

@@peenweinerstein9968 but metaphysics is something that cannot be proven to exist in the first place

You open the box and see a round object... Yes, you need empirical data to answer the question. But it is your ability to reason tells you that it is an owl's egg rather than a golf ball. The rationalist is NOT saying that sense data are unnecessary. Rationalism only gives primacy to 'reasoning' as the final arbiter that actually makes sense of sense data. The sheer volume of sense data that we are subject to is voluminous. It is our ability to reason that extracts intelligent information from this unholy mess of sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch.

@@hkumar7340 "how can I find out what is inside by using REASON ALONE?"

This is exactly why we need both.

No such a thing as ultimate truth. There can only be approximations at best.

@@SkyHize Respectfully, you're making an absolute knowledge claim while also inadvertently admitting that you don't ultimately know it, and similarly to a religious position, your comment seems religious in its own way as it essentially invites people to place their eternal fate in your hands, hands of a man who admits not to know, and you are dictating to them a limitation that they cannot know or find the answers to the deepest questions, which means you are actually discouraging people from the pursuit of truth by denying it's possibility to be obtained. Also, you are conflating the actual truth (true state of reality) one is seeking with a person's perception of it. "Approximations" pertain to a reach toward that truth, but it's not itself that truth it reaches toward. The last issue with your post is that it seems it attempts to "censor" other messages through a short dismissive close end 2 sentence response.

When speaking about approximations, it means that we can always find out more about reality so it doesn't make sense to say that you suddenly become content and give up on the search. It couldn't be further from the truth as people who like saying that they have or reached ultimate truths are the religious thinkers who indulge in dogma. If you have reached "truth", there is no other reason to continue. You have reached the wrong conclusion.

@@SkyHize The message is inherently antitruth because it implies that the ultimate truth can never be reached. It is a message against the core of Truth itself.

Glad you found this video useful :)

You're welcome, thanks for watching :)

I'd say you could make an argument for that. But the mind is guided by genetics, which is the product of chemical reactions, atoms, etc. What innate knowledge did the genes have? What innate knowledge do atoms have? In the end we have to look at cause and effect. Christianity, for me, is the only way to reconcile the universe's existence and that of rational thought.

Gage Howe I guess I’d say the genes/atoms on their own don’t have innate knowledge, but the correct culmination of them put together can then give innate knowledge. The same way words are just filler/definitions until they’re put together in the right order if that makes any sense.

This is what I kept thinking about watching this. I thought about the idea that we have innate knowledge but it's not necessarily spiritual or god given. Like how babies hold their arms out if they feel themselves falling naturally, or how rats, even labratory bound ones who have never met a cat have a panic response to cat smell. I think evolution should be mentioned in this argument and I think that 'nature vs nurture' could be brought up as an interesting sidenote to the debate since the empirical standpoint is in a basic way 'nurture'. Perhaps genetics should be mentioned as well, especially when talking about being predisposed to certain interests and talents. Such an interesting topic!

Thank you!

You're welcome :)

Thank you!

Glad we could help :D

Thank you.

Spoken like a true empiricist. Your side isn’t as watertight as you “assume” it is.

Not from an Empiricist point of view. His arguments for Rationalism seemed like classic deflection, which is what typical rationalists do. deflect, and use arguments that don't make any sense (often connected to mythology)

@@neoskaisaras3454 may I ask u some question

@@neoskaisaras3454 Not necessarily. The fact is that universal truths exist inside our intellect, such as instincts, intuition, genetics, morality, etc. How do we react to perception? Pre-programmed, innate knowledge. Empirical evidence, experiences, do in fact exist; this does not in any way disprove rational thought based on these data points. Neither does an ad hominem, btw.

@@gagehowe1960 may I ask you something

@@gagehowe1960 may I ask you something

Thank you. And we have covered Intuitionism as part of the GE Moore Non Naturalism video so this might be worth a watch :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ppqWec9er5a6m6c.html

Glad it helped!

Glad we could help :)

Surely that would imply that people with similar brain structures should have similar innate concepts in their heads. Not sure how accurate that is though.

Thank you for the suggestions, we will look into this.

May I ask u something

If i explain to you the concept of an apple, and you instead interpret it as potato. Does that make the concept of an apple any less true? No it just prooves you are stupid.

Glad we could help. Best of luck in the exam.

@@PhilosophyVibe Actually Rationalism and Empiricism didn't came in the exam but still I am glad that I understand it fully with the help of your video and will never forget it. Thanks again!!!

Pleasure, glad it helped.

Happy we could help you learn. In fact we have a video on Kant's Transcendental Idealism coming up in March, so stay tuned!

@@PhilosophyVibe Yes thanks can't wait.

@@PhilosophyVibe may I ask you something

Glad you enjoyed it!