The methodological emptiness of rationalism and the arrogance of certainty

Started by Baruch, July 21, 2018, 02:19:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

https://vimeo.com/136355241

A great many people are Platonists ... and we are the worse for it.  Christian theology was originally formed out of Platonism
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

luckswallowsall

Kant greatly built on top of Platonism.

Rationalism is indeed rational There's no problem with that.

Empricism is important too. And indeed rational.

Kant is famous primarily for uniting empiricism and rationalism together.

Kant's concept of noumenal reality is a great improvement on Plato's world of ideals.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:15:02 AM
Kant greatly built on top of Platonism.

Rationalism is indeed rational There's no problem with that.

Empricism is important too. And indeed rational.

Kant is famous primarily for uniting empiricism and rationalism together.

Kant's concept of noumenal reality is a great improvement on Plato's world of ideals.

I took a online test recently.  I'm 100% Kant and 75% Hume.  The choices were defined by the test-givers of course.  But I expect it is close to accurate.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 07:21:33 AM
I took a online test recently.  I'm 100% Kant and 75% Hume.  The choices were defined by the test-givers of course.  But I expect it is close to accurate.

I did either the same test or a similar test a few years ago. I'm not sure where it is though.

This one, on the matter of morality, is good:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/

But I think my moral values have improved due to becoming more nuanced... and years ago I used to have 100% consistency but now my consistency has lessered (according to the test)... but I think this is just because the test can definitely not incoroporate the nuance I have since developed. As it's a nuance that is highly electic and 99% of the philosophical community don't accept... so it won't really be addressed in the test.

If I go back to my standard utilitarian views I can easily get 100% consistency on this test... but I have since seen objections to utilitarianism. But I am still a consequentialist. So this is something the test has trouble making sense of.

But if you're a Utilitarian, virtue ethicist, deontologist or some combination of those three... then the test is a great one.

Or if you're a moral nihilist or moral relativist it should be fine as well.

Here's my favorite philosophical test of all though:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/stayingalive/Default.aspx

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 07:21:33 AM
I took a online test recently.  I'm 100% Kant and 75% Hume.  The choices were defined by the test-givers of course.  But I expect it is close to accurate.

If you expect that 100% Kant is accurate... then doesn't this mean you think that some behavior is objectively right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Is that so?

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:48:19 AM
I did either the same test or a similar test a few years ago. I'm not sure where it is though.

This one, on the matter of morality, is good:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/

But I think my moral values have improved due to becoming more nuanced... and years ago I used to have 100% consistency but now my consistency has lessered (according to the test)... but I think this is just because the test can definitely not incoroporate the nuance I have since developed. As it's a nuance that is highly electic and 99% of the philosophical community don't accept... so it won't really be addressed in the test.

If I go back to my standard utilitarian views I can easily get 100% consistency on this test... but I have since seen objections to utilitarianism. But I am still a consequentialist. So this is something the test has trouble making sense of.

But if you're a Utilitarian, virtue ethicist, deontologist or some combination of those three... then the test is a great one.

Or if you're a moral nihilist or moral relativist it should be fine as well.

Here's my favorite philosophical test of all though:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/stayingalive/Default.aspx

What results did you get on the test?  You avoided that.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:49:41 AM
If you expect that 100% Kant is accurate... then doesn't this mean you think that some behavior is objectively right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Is that so?

No.  The "objectively right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Is that so?" is a typical theist trick.  Nice try.

Bye bye...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Shiranu

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Cavebear

Quote from: Shiranu on September 27, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
Bleh, Plato and Kant. Give me Camus and Sartre any day over them.

I give no value to Plato the mystic...

And as the philosophy students said in the 60s "Neitchze was peachy but Sartre is smarter"  But those were more modern, and I see nothing sensible in either. 

Just my opinion, of course.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Sal1981

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:48:19 AM
I did either the same test or a similar test a few years ago. I'm not sure where it is though.

This one, on the matter of morality, is good:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/
I scored 54% parsimonious morality. I guess it's because I look more at a practical applications, as well as in-group/out-group relations, than absolutist moral principles.

Cavebear

Quote from: Sal1981 on September 27, 2018, 09:56:49 AM
I scored 54% parsimonious morality. I guess it's because I look more at a practical applications, as well as in-group/out-group relations, than absolutist moral principles.

"Morality" is religious; "ethics" are human.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 07:54:25 AM
What results did you get on the test?  You avoided that.

I didn't avoid it. I can't remember what my results were... it was a long time ago that I took them.

Shiranu

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 09:53:19 AM
I give no value to Plato the mystic...

And as the philosophy students said in the 60s "Neitchze was peachy but Sartre is smarter"  But those were more modern, and I see nothing sensible in either. 

Just my opinion, of course.

"If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought this fame for which I'm still waiting, it's all been to seduce women basically." - Sartre

Seems pretty sensible to me :P.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Shiranu on September 27, 2018, 05:20:11 PM
"If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought this fame for which I'm still waiting, it's all been to seduce women basically." - Sartre

Seems pretty sensible to me :P.

Sounds like a hoaxed quote...

If he said that... and he wasn't joking.... no wonder his existentialism is a load of nonsense.

Shiranu

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 05:28:45 PM
Sounds like a hoaxed quote...

If he said that... and he wasn't joking.... no wonder his existentialism is a load of nonsense.

I would assume it was a joke, though likely with a tinge of truth to it.

But on existentialism, what exactly is nonsense?

There are things I don't agree with, but at most it's stuff I just don't philosophically agree with rather than making an objective statement that it is wrong.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur