Empiricism and Rationalism are both true!

[r0ckyreed]

I have been thinking about empiricism and rationalism. I have come to the conclusion that it is not an either or debate but both are important processes for deriving knowledge. If we just had our senses but no ability to think, then our ability to attain knowledge is limited. If we just have our thoughts but no experience, then it is inference and speculation. I am claiming that Leo Gura and everyone on earth is using both empiricism and rationalism to derive insight and knowledge. However, when communicating knowledge to others, I can only do it through the rationalist paradigm. I cannot communicate experience to you but only my rationalizations of it.

Here are my additional thoughts: 

So, I think that knowledge is derived through experience. If I cannot experience it directly, then I cannot say for certain that it exists. There is a difference between inference/assumption/belief and knowledge/experience.

I can learn facts about the color blue, but no amount of facts and rationality will get me any closer than the actual experience of the color blue. I can study all the facts and rationalize about what life is like on the moon, but until I experience the moon, it is all theory at best. However, I think that rationality and contemplation can help us to understand the world but that is mainly because rationality is linked to our senses.

For instance, we were able to “know” that there earth was round before we were able to go to outer space. But this knowledge I would argue was derived from experience because rationality is our thoughts about our experiences. Rationality is another experience, perception, and sense. Some people say that there is innate knowledge such as that babies are breathing at birth and have an innate knowledge of their mother’s voice. I would argue that it is more biological programming than actual knowledge. Just because I am already able to do something doesn’t mean I have knowledge of it.

But I also think that our experiences are limited in a way. For instance, I think that we can know that infinity exists even though we cannot experience all the derivations of infinity. We can have an insight that if I count 1 2 3 4 … 400 … 7373636, etc. that I can reach the insight that numbers never end even without direct proof. So, it seems like our logic can be limited because there are insights we can have that go beyond our experience and explication.

Our experience also does not necessarily tell us if we are self-deceived. It seems like our rationality is what helps us analyze information we receive from the senses to make it work and derive knowledge. I think both rationality and our senses are essential in knowledge. The kind of knowledge I am talking about here is relative knowledge. Absolute knowledge about the nature of reality I think can only be implicitly understood like the natural numbers going to infinity.

I don’t think direct knowledge of the Absolute is possible. I think that the Absolute is direct experience and we cannot know anything further than that.

What do you think of my thoughts here?

[Theplay]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

I think that the Absolute is direct experience and we cannot know anything further than that.

 

I think so too.

I really liked what you wrote.

I think that the mind has an important place in existence. It is there for a reason.

Yet it is important to strike the right balance between thinking about reality versus actually experiencing it.

Great leaps can be made by contemplation as well as observation.

I am currently reading Peter Ralston's book "The book of not knowing" and he talks about the state of not knowing that precedes any genuine discovery.

like what the zen folks say:

Empty your cup. 

[Leo Gura]

2 blind men describing an elephant.

[Ishanga]

Everything You say to me or anyone is only a story for me or anyone, Your Truth is Your Truth, the only up side is that we are all Human Beings, we are not so different from one another, only on surface or bodiliy level are we diferent in some ways, so you can infer commanality on that point..

In the End Subjectivity is 99% of everything for You, since all Experience happens within You no where else, but intellectually we know there are other ppl, places and things in this world separate (on the physical level only) from Us. So until I experience it for myself, then it is not a True reality for Me. Its the same for everyone, but there are methods to get up to a point of absolute Clarity, we will see and experience the samething but probably express it differently, but when I hear the ppl on the pscyedelics thread relating their experiences they all say the same as Leo, I am God, I am Everything, I am I am I am, which is probably influenced by their ideology or someone, I wonder who:)

[r0ckyreed]

32 minutes ago, Theplay said:

I think so too.

I really liked what you wrote.

I think that the mind has an important place in existence. It is there for a reason.

Yet it is important to strike the right balance between thinking about reality versus actually experiencing it.

Great leaps can be made by contemplation as well as observation.

I am currently reading Peter Ralston's book "The book of not knowing" and he talks about the state of not knowing that precedes any genuine discovery.

like what the zen folks say:

Empty your cup. 

Yes, contemplation and observation are both essential. Contemplation is based off of observations which is why I saw experience is more fundamental as a basis for knowledge than just thinking. But contemplation seems to help me attain more insights than just simply observing without thinking. 

[r0ckyreed]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

2 blind men describing an elephant.

How would you get around this problem then? We are left with our senses and thoughts at the end of the day. Empiricism suggests observation is the gateway to knowledge and rationalism suggests contemplation is the gateway to knowledge. I’m not sure what other option we have. It seems like both empiricism and rationalism have grains of truth.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

It seems like both empiricism and rationalism have grains of truth.

That's what my statement means.

Read the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Edited January 24, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Theplay]

@Leo Gura I thought you meant us and had an ego reaction.

Very interesting to watch.

Always teaching even when you don't mean too

 

[r0ckyreed]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's what my statement means.

Read the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

My mistake. My initial interpretation was focusing on the negatives of being blind as being 100% deluded rather than partly deluded. I forgot about the part that the Devil operates most effectively on half-truths.

In your Serious Philosophy video, you put Empiricism and Rationalism in the camp of useless philosophies, which seemed interesting to me.

I discussed my thoughts on this topic with ChatGPT, and it suggested that my ideas align more with empiricism because I hold experience as more fundamental than thought. In my contemplations, I have come to the conclusion that thought is experience and is generated by the senses. Our thoughts are a replication of our senses in the mind. If we took a baby and put it in a sensory deprivation tank and then released it 40 years later, I would bet that it could not perform any rational functions. It would essential think like an ape when it got out in the world. This goes to show that there is an interchangeable relationship between our experience and thoughts, but experience is what comes first. 

It also largely depends on what kind of knowledge we are pursuing. There are different kinds of knowledge and not just one kind. I think that is the main assumption of both theories is that there is only one type of knowledge either knowledge derived only through rationality or through senses. But knowledge is derived through all modes of experience, so it seems like empiricism is slightly more true. However, empiricism seems to have more assumptions that are false, but the main assumption that knowledge is derived through experience seems to be absolutely true. The issue is that it does not account for innate knowledge and assumes that we are born on a blank slate.

Rationalism seems to have less assumptions and focuses more on universal principles like the rules mathematics, physics, logic, etc., which are all of course based off of our experience in this particular dimension of consciousness.

The issue I am having is that I seem to be contradicting myself because on the one hand, I think knowledge is derived through consciousness but at the same time, I do not think it is possible to have knowledge about consciousness itself because that is the precise "mechanism" that allows knowledge to be even possible. I think that Consciousness is always going to be a mystery because it is absolutely infinite. But on the other hand, I do not know this for certain. It seems like Absolute Knowledge or Omniscience is not possible because knowledge seems to be finite. 

Anybody else have any thoughts? Anything that I am overlooking?

[r0ckyreed]

10 minutes ago, Theplay said:

@Leo Gura I thought you meant us and had an ego reaction.

Very interesting to watch.

Always teaching even when you don't mean too

 

That's what I thought too lol. I thought he has talking to us two lol, which that is also true XD.

[r0ckyreed]

The main issue I notice about myself is that paradoxes screw with my mind. I cannot stop thinking about them into I have resolved them somehow in my mind, understanding, and actions. For instance, the paradox between knowledge and not-knowing, ambition and presence, empiricism and rationalism, skepticism and omniscience, silencing the mind and using the mind, etc.

[Leo Gura]

Empricism and rationalism are both partial perspectives of a larger reality.

[Theplay]

Seek freedom instead of seeking knowledge.

There is no correct point of view on reality, all points of view are glasses the mind puts over our raw experience.

The statement above is also a point of view

 

[Breakingthewall]

All that knowledge means nothing on a spiritual or existential level; on the contrary, it is an obstacle. true knowledge is what you are. An animal knows more than a scholar, he knows what his vital impulse is, that is what he is, he understands death and life. everything else is filler

[Yimpa]

10 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

What do you think of my thoughts here?

I think, therefore I am.