Bushi


I really understand your line of thinking, however, I think you are misinterpreting the philosophic explanations of rationalism. You are equating rationalism with abstract thought. Here’s an example of “rational” abstract thought. In high school I took algebra. I NEVER understood what I was learning. To me it had no practical use. About 10 years later I got a promotion and my boss asked me to write a program tracking teller transactions. The operating system was DOS. It took me about a week before I had that ah ha moment and all that algebra came rushing back. The same thing happened with Excel. When everyone else was having issues understanding excel I was creating huge human resource programs with it.

In those cases, I had the foundation, it was already taught to me, even though I had no idea what purpose it could serve. But I was able to think abstractly, pull that “useless” information out and apply it.

This is rational and it’s logical and it’s insight BUT it is not “rationalism”. It’s not rationalism because the information was not a priori (knowledge apart from observation or experience) it was a posteriori (knowledge based on actual observation). The observation was how to process the mathematical equations. In these cases the programs were the tools, math was the knowledge and the ability to apply abstract thinking was the rational thought you are appealing to. But those thoughts did not appear out of no-where they had a foundation.

Rationalism (philosophically speaking) has a foundation as well, it happens to be intrinsic, or inherently part of our nature as granted by the creative forces that are the reason for our being.

Abra is absolutely correct when he states

Every single philosopher who fall into the rationalism theory, believes we have been created to include the ability to access universal knowledge, OR, that each of us come inclusive of such knowledge within the mind – which, by they way, these same philosophers, accept as separate from body. When body is gone, mind goes on. Maybe understanding that make it easier to understand how, and why, rationalism came into being. Philosophers “rationalized” that the eternal mind (or the universal mind) was equipped from it’s creation with all the knowledge of the universe.

Personally, I like your idea of what rationalism, should be considered, but it just won’t fit into the current philosophic theory of “rationalism” vs “empiricism”.

OH – one more feature that should not be confused with rationalism is this. Empiricism does not HAVE to be ONLY that which is subjectively experienced. Empiricism can be an accepted scientific postulate or, in other words - the acceptance (belief) that another has experienced or perceived whatever it is we are accepting as knowledge. Give me a twenty page mathematical equation and tell me it means (whatever) and I may believe you, especially if it serves the scientific community as “common” knowledge. I may even begin a new theory from where the last one left off and as long as MY theory proves out, I’m good without ever having experienced solving the first part of the equation.

I think I’m repeating now – I’ll stop – sorry. WORDY (I hate when I get that remark on my word and grammar review – dah!)



nice

Dammit Bushi you are such a pain in the carpals!

Ok, so if I use the example “I want <object>”, you’ll say that there must have been an observation of such an object (even if it were an imagined object) before there could be a desire for it.

So let’s take a different tack.

Loosely translated (in deference to Redy) with Empiricism, the observer is gaining knowledge through sensory input.

Now, what is it that transforms “sensory input” into “knowledge”?

Where did the “sensory input = knowledge” idea come from?

I maintain that it is that “sensory input = knowledge” idea that is the rationalistic idea upon which all empirical thinking relies.

In my humblest of opinions...

That transformation capability is contained within one's own personal sense of ought and/or perceptual faculty. The personal agreements within each of us determine whether a new piece of information is worthy of further contemplation... or not.

Inference and extrapolation(s) from previously accepted knowledge continually grows the personal tree of knowledge, which may or may not be an accurate representation of truth and/or fact. The unconscious also weighs heavily on one's own personal perceptual capabilities.

Creative,

How would you define this thing you call "personal sense of ought?"

And also, what is a "personal agreement within us?"

Are we agreeing "within" ourselves or with someone else?

Yes I would.

A special person i met here directed me to a book
That is tittled Against happeness. In praise of melancholy. Being neither happy nor sad.

I call it yellow alert, being on the alert for trouble makes you aware of many things you wouldnt have picked up on. Like, when you are looking for the thorns, you get to smell the roses.

That sounds depressing.

Actually I do understand.

But I always feel that underlying divine JOY.

JOY!

With respect to Billy, I will keep this brief. Although I believe the underlying implications fit the OP, it is on an abstract level.




In the simplest of terms with the most commonly held definitions...

personal sense of ought = one's individual value assessment capabilities

personal agreement = that which has been accepted as valid(the sense of ought's foundational premises)



both, either, and neither...

The answer to this depends on the given scenario, although the personal sense of ought is often nearly identical to the collective, never gaining it's own identity per se.


Hiya Di...

Yea Di. I can see where they (rationalist) where headed, I personally think it was a dark place that didn't smell too good, that we tell people to pull there heads from once in a while, but hey great thinkers are allowed to wonder off the path, especially when the data isn't there yet.

To me to use a word like Rational in context to a universal medium for consciousness that is completely unprovable is the opposite of rational. Perhaps that is my problem with some philosophy.

I am not sure what some of the opinions here are based upon, because I cannot logically follow some of the expressions. None-the-less, I have been wondering about something.

This question is for any who support this rational viewpoint...

Can you actually specify any knowledge which is not based upon sensory experience?

That would completely depend upon whether you are talking about only the known five senses.

I understand, let me rephrase then, if you would.

Name any piece of knowledge, and the path of empiricism will light the way as to how that piece of knowledge was acquired by experience.

If you would rather, name one innate piece of knowledge.

Perhaps we should first agree upon a definition of knowledge, of course that would be an empirical path as well.

The knowledge that there was someone hiding in the back seat of my car with a weapon came to me innately. (From within)

I heard my own voice inside of my head and it said:-- "There is someone in my car!"

That was my experience.

The knowledge was a fact. (There was someone hiding in my car.)

None of the recognized known "five senses" were involved in my receiving this knowledge.

There were five witnesses to the event, but no other person heard the voice. (It was in my head.)

What they did witness was me repeating the phrase out loud.
I kept saying: "There is someone in my car."

Then I took three men with me to my car parked across the street, and we discovered (and extracted) a man from the back seat of my car who was hiding in the dark.

Does that meet your specs?

JB...

I am glad that you were not harmed.

Concerning the acquisition of the knowledge in your given scenario...



Innately?

Innate means that one was born with it, therefore it requires no experience of any kind in order to acquire it. You may have been born with a sixth sense, but not the knowledge that someone was in your car.



The empirical construct does not belong to me.

Remove that experience from your life, and you will have effectively removed the possibility to acquire that piece of knowledge.

I don't see how that can be a fact. If it happened once in that experience, it could happen again, perhaps with some other piece of knowledge.

And why would I remove that experience from my life?
And who is to say it could not happen again?

In my experience, I have known what an item of food would taste like before I ever tried it. It certainly seemed innate.

Instinct seems innate.

Are we born with knowledge? I think some people are born with the innate knack to play music or other talents.

One little girl I saw on television started playing the piano at age three. She would hear a tune and could play it. At age five she was doing concerts. Seems innate knowledge may have had a part in that.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Your claim is that one is born with the knowledge of events which have yet to happen?

What does that do to the concept of free choice?

The little girl had knowledge of how to play a piano before she had seen one?

Remove the piano, replace it with a clarinet. If she plays the clarinet as well, than you would feel as though she was born with that knowledge as well?

Sounds like she is a musical genius to me... a very fast learner.

I am making no claims at all. I am just giving you what you seem to be asking for.

You cannot be born with knowledge of events which have not yet happened because the only real "time" that exists is the present moment.

BUT if at the present moment, you suddenly acquire or have knowledge of that event (with no traditional senses having given you that knowledge) what would you call that?

ESP? (Extra sensory perception.) Still, that is a sense, but perhaps not one that is acknowledged or recognized.

Are people born with ESP? (Assuming people do have ESP)
I think it is possible. I think it is possible to "know" things not learned by traditional senses.



(Does not apply.)



Possibly. Perhaps she had played a piano in a past life. (Also not accepted by science)



Possibly.



Possibly.

DNA gains knowledge without sense. Computers hold and use knowledge that they did not gain through senses.

Under certain definitions of Knowledge, this works. You may disagree, but that is the nature of humanity and the simplistic nature of language.

-Relevant information that one is able to recall from memory
-An integrated collection of facts and relationships which, when exercised, produces competent performance.

This was just a quicky. Please feel free to tear this apart, but please be kind I am not versed on philosophy. (kind means use links if you can so I can gain knowledge through my senses lol)