I think some of the sneering scorn comes from the fact that a form of essentialism was the official theology of the Roman Catholic Church where it was enforced by the power of the state. When that seemed to fall apart due to the advent of modern science and enlightenment philosophy, scorn was part of the reaction.
That process gets recapitulated over and over as children are endoctrinated into religion during their early years only to find that what they have been taught is questionable in term of modern science.
The philosophies of Plato and Hegel have existential elements, by the way.
Your points aren’t clear to me. I don’t know what you are getting at. What have I said against writing things down? What makes you think I am prejudiced toward religion? Why rename the thread? I don’t have a problem with the title of the thread. I mentioned Plato and Hegel only because they’re are usually thought of as representatives of essentialism. It isn’t that I think that is wrong, only that there is also an existential aspect in their philosophy. For example, in the analogy of the cave, life in the cave is a metaphor for existence. In Hegel, the existential element is represented in his bit about the master and the slave, which incidently was picked up by Nietzsche and others.
So anyway, I was merely responding to what you posted, venturing to answer your questions. Were your questions were merely rhetorical or meant to provoke an argument or are you actually interested in discussing the issues?
Nah if that was true there wouldn’t be any conflict and degredation between things. Unless you think conflict/disorder is the natural state of the universe (in which case you got bigger things to worry about).
Empiricism explains knowledge like a zoo gorilla on crack explains why Im sweaty; which is why real philosophers hide away in shame when the subject comes up.
You state essence could be anything depending on the time. If this was true there wouldn’t be a universal essence a thing is supposed to have that is true in all time. For example, its like saying a gorilla’s essence will be a chair when I choose to sit on it. Not really.
Do we really need more reasons? This topic’s already been beaten like a Jew at a Hitler rally.
I know. That’s my whole point. I’m offering a different definition of ‘essence’. I define it as what-things-ultimately-are. This doesn’t depend on permanence in the least.
It wouldn’t be a specific chair (i.e. one that we readily identify as ‘a chair’), but I think you’re missing the point anyway. A better example would be that a gorilla’s essence is ‘a gorilla’ because he is, in fact, a gorilla, but when he dies and his body decays, his essence will be more like ‘worm fodder’.
It has been beaten but I haven’t seen the anti-empiricist position standing victoriously. The empiricist’s position is that we know things when we can empirically verify them. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I assume the anti-empiricist position would hold that we can’t trust our senses, and so they’re useless in providing us knowledge of the external world. Is this right? I’m not intractibly swayed by either side TBH but I see the empiricist side as being a lot more persuasive. You’ll have to argue something a lot more convincing to change my mind.
Yea, I’m sayin that makes no sense. Either way you’d have to round out your whole philosophy for someone to evaluate it. The point of this is thread picking apart Plato’s philosophy and then insert your own which fits in better if you want to discredit it. Saying things have different essences at different times doesn’t really work because he’d say thats not really an essence because it’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. Then he’d go on to show you thats why conflict exists and so on.
Thats because empiricists always apply circular garbage. Whenever something is rationally shown to be solid, empiricists always beg the question by stating it’s not empirically verifiable so its clearly not true. Of course it’s not empirically verifiable because empiricism itself is garbage and doesn’t verify anything of value like ideas or concepts.
Then it’s an argument about semantics (which was clear at the start). I, for one, think that you can define a term however you like, but I also think certain limits ought to be observed. If you want to redefine a term, you should at least stick to its common usage. I don’t see anything uncommon about the usage of ‘essence’ as in saying “What is the essence of such-and-such? What is it really? What is it ultimately?”
Besides, A&O asked for my rendition of ‘essence’.
It’s still not clear what you’re going on about. For one thing, solidity is clearly within the province of empiricism. Just because someone comes up with a rational argument for why a thing is solid doesn’t mean it’s beyond the empiricist’s perview. For another thing, not all empiricists believe that if something is unverifiable then it’s untrue (or doesn’t exist). That position is held more by the materialists and logical positivists who (albeit) so happen to be empiricists as well, but its the former that exempts the unverifiable from truth/existence, not the latter.
Maybe yours was just a bad example. Give me a better example where the rationalist permits himself certain conclusions that the empiricists can only deny by way of ‘circular garbage’ (in light of what I just argued).
Everything is semantics, but if semantics don’t rationally make sense no one really takes it seriously. Otherwise the theories of psychopaths and serial killers would be esteemed in the same light as sane human beings.
Yea and Plato would say what something currently is might not be it fulfilling it’s essence. Then he would give examples: i.e. using your finger to cut a piece of bread. If you used a knife it would be more efficient, you would exert less strain, it would cut more perfectly etc. The essence of something is how close it comes to it’s perfect eternal idea. If something could be better, then that’s not really what it is ultimately, it’s just a flawed, degenerated state.
I meant solid as in logical, not physically solid.
I dont logically follow. If they state knowledge arises from experience, then no knowledge could exist outside of experience. Therefore all knowledge is based off of experience.
“empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know “things,” part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or “the Theory of Knowledge”. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).” - Wikipedia
Stating something is good or bad. In order to distinguish that something is good or bad, you have to have preconceived notions of what good or bad is. Plato would say we evaluate good or bad by how close something is to it’s essence. Another example would be in addition. You don’t add by looking at physical numbers. The physical numbers represent ideas that you draw on to complete your problem.
I can’t even explain how they even deny this because its so freakin illogical its almost incomprehensible.
of course you do, now you’re being silly - turn on the tap, and you assume water will come out - turn the wheel, you assume the car will follow - go to the bus stop, you assume the bus will eventually come - all knowledge is in one way or another an assumption
that’s an assumption right there - you’re assuming it existed prior to humans use of it - even if there were evidence of that, which there isn’t, it would still be an assumption
essence is necessarily an abstraction, what exists is not necessarily an abstraction, though it can be - in any case, even if they are the same thing then one cannot, as per Plato’s forms, be any more “real” than the other
this begs the question - and, like i said, all knowledge is in one way or another an assumption - some assumptions are sound (the ones that pan out, as it were), and others are less sound - some are true, and some are false - but they’re all assumptions, because anything you think is true is taken for granted as true
No, there are times when two people disagree because one (or both) are using faulty logic. They agree on the meaning of the terms, but draw different conclusions due to some deviation in their logic.
It’s true that some definitions are incoherent, but that’s not the case here.
How so? Do you mean that if I defined ‘psychopaths’ as ‘sane human beings’ then there would be no distinguishing between them? Well, yes, there wouldn’t be any distinguishing, but only because now the term ‘psychopath’ refers to sane human beings. The actual people who go around killing out of lack of guilt wouldn’t even be referred to. You’d have to come up with a new word for them - which isn’t a problem, except that we don’t typically like to change the meaning of words that whimsically. If the term ‘psychopath’ refers to sane human beings, then it’s only logical that we say things like “Psychopaths are innocent” or “Psychopaths have a level head on their shoulders”. This only seems counterintuitive because we don’t refer to sane human beings with the word ‘psychopath’. But if we did, this wouldn’t seem counterintuitive at all.
Then Plato and I are referring to different things.
How can something not be what it is? Just because you use your finger as though it were a knife doesn’t make it a knife. It’s just your finger. I think you’re confusing functional definitions with essences. functional definitions refer to the function the thing is performing, not its essence. If we constantly used our fingers as knives, then we may very well come to call it a knife because of how we’re using it, but this doesn’t bear anything on its essence. Our finger, call it whatever you want, is still the thing it always was. As Shakespear said “A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet”.
What is ‘logical solidity’ if not physical? Are you talking about someone drawing the logical conclusion that something is solid?
Yes, knowledge cannot arise by any other means than empirical verification (according to the empiricists) but that’s different from saying that such-and-such exists or is true. Something that can’t be verified may nonetheless be true or exist, but according to the empiricist, we can’t know it. Knowing it exists or is true is different from it actually existing or being true.
That’s a better example. I’m in full agreement that we can arrive at reliable knowledge of mathematical truisms without empirical evidence (about the good and bad thing, I’m less sure). Same with geometry. Same with logic. But I haven’t heard the empiricists argument against these, so I can’t say what would make their arguments ‘circular’. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Yea, but that wouldn’t be disagreement, that would just be one person being wrong.
No, because there are common conceptions as to what these terms both mean.
Yeah and I stated that’s flawed because it could be something better. Right now it’s just inefficient and flawed. The point is if it is possible for something to be better, then it is what it is, but not what it’s truly supposed to be.
Hmm…
K then just forget solid altogether. How about “logically sound” is that better? Or “logically makes sense”.
Oh so now there’s different types of existence? Then empiricism would be flawed to begin with because it doesn’t encompass all of existence.
Think of it this way. If I told you I could show you something is a certain color, but someone else tells you then can show you where colors come from what would you consider more valuable? This is how empiricists spend the entirety of their existence, wallowing in the same fenced off cesspool of ignorance like dumb beasts.
They only state we can’t know it because they know their own philosophy is a failure at understanding anything of value.
You can’t know something thats not true. Thats like saying I know non-existence. All knowledge is truth and all that exists can be known.
Most empiricists don’t know what they’re talking about any more than I do. To make logical sense of something that is not in itself logical is a futile endeavor.
that’s not a flaw - that’s just the reality of any philosophy that works - it will always only be partial
Gosh. What are you so angry about. Look what empiricism has given you - you couldn’t survive without it.
empiricism is a tool, it’s not meant to work for everything - value is something you add to it, and apparently the value you’ve added to it is deeply negative one, but you have yet to justify that overt bias with a reason.
Let me get this straight. One person is right, the other wrong, yet they don’t disagree - talk about your incoherent definitions.
Yes, but I already stated that there are limits that should be imposed on our definitions, namely…
If it is what it is, then that’s its essence (according to my definition). What it’s ‘supposed’ to be has nothing to do with it. The flaw has to do with its function, or with us (because we’re going about using it in a very inefficient way), not with it being the thing it actually is.
‘hmm’ what? Are you trying to expose an inconsistency on my part? How is defining ‘essence’ as that which a thing ultimately is inconsistent with calling a finger a ‘knife’ if we use it as such? I’m not saying that if we call a finger a knife in virtue of using it as such then the finger suddenly becomes the same kind of object as that which we actually call knives. You’re still not understanding the difference between essential definitions and functional ones.
Oh, you mean ‘solid’ as in “that argument is solid!” Okay, now what was the question here? That an argument can be solid is not something that can be empirically verified? Sure, I’ll buy that. It’s essentially the same as what I conceded to earlier (vis-a-vis mathematical and logical truths).
No, who said that??? I said there’s a difference between a thing existing and knowing it exists.
Wow, you’re very poetic in your insults. That aside, I would say that just because something would be more valuable to know doesn’t make it knowable.
right.
So says Duality. That’s little more than a bold assertion. I don’t know how it debunks empiricism.
Do you mean that because empirical observations aren’t inherently logical that it makes little sense to derive logical conclusions from them? I wouldn’t speak so fast: empirical observation are capable of yeilding propositions - that is, they produce knowledge of what is observed. If I observe traffic on the road, that yeilds the knowledge that “there is traffic on the road”. Once this knowledge is acquired, it can be compared and contrasted with other knowledge to derive logically sound arguments.