Transcendental Idealism versus rationalism and empiricism

So, I would like to ask everyone if they think it is true that if a group of people would have secluded themselves say 200 years ago from the rest of humanity and science and base themselves wholly on deontology instead of the commonly used teleology that they would have evolved much faster scientifically at least? This in the sense of being (much) more scientifically evolved than the now normal level of science in the world?

So, true or false and please do give your reason for saying either.

I don’t think that I understand what you personally mean by “teleology”. Contemporary science doesn’t use any form of teleology.

As far as “deontology”, I bothered to form an entirely new ontology (“reontology”), Affectance Ontology, so as to get it all straightened out and discover that mysterious “Unified Field Theory” they claim to have been look for. No more mysteries.

Contemporary science is only teleological: it is about the phenomena because it examins cause and effect. And causes and effects are merely other ways of saying ‘goals’.

Are you metaphorically saying Rationalists (deontologists) - in the strict philosophical sense of rationalism vs. Empiricists (teleologists)?

Deontology is determining ethics by evaluating the act in itself. I can’t really see how to take your use of the term literally. One can think in terms of cause and effect practically while being a deontologist ethically. So that’s why I am assuming you are really asking about Rationalist approaches to knowledge.

There have never been any pure rationalists, however. So it would be more than secluding them, it would be that they agree, somehow, to never be empirical in gaining knowledge. They would suddenly be unique in the history of humans, even primates.

Cause and effect are not teleology. And Science, being the philosophy of measuring observations (empiricism), hasn’t anything to do with teleology nor deontology.

Emmm … excuse me!?

Being the creator of Rational Metaphysics, I would think that I qualify.

Ahhh … so that’s been my problem. :confused:

Man, it has been so long since I was using the terms that I messed up.

I meant transcendental idealistic versus {rationalistic or empiricistic}.

==edit==
Apologies for the wrong terminology.

Maybe we should ask a mod to lock this one and start over?

Could you describe that for us, just to make sure that we are on the same page?

The combining of a major and a minor premiss to conclude to a new minor premiss.

Hmmm… that is what I would call “reasoning” and is very strongly attached to rationalism and philosophy.

Rationalism uses two minor premisses and so does empiricism; while at the same time denying the other; but still talking about a phenomenon.

Transcendental idealism is based on both in some way, but takes another step: using a major premiss.

I never cared much for that “major” and “minor” premise terminology, but it seems to me that rationalism uses both premise types throughout.

A major premise is a categorical statement, a generalization; “all mammals breath air”.
A minor premise is a specific statement; “my dog breaths air”.

Transcendental idealism (ie. Kant) is a presumption that what we see is not necessarily associated with the reality (big surprise), that human experience is perception based (which to any rationalist, is more than obviously correct).

And you want to contrast that with Science, the art of measuring (empiricism)?

You name 2 minor premisses; exactly what I think is wrong with both rationalism and empiricism and therefore why I ask the question.

I’m going to need a lot more examples when you say things because there is just too much room for ambiguity. What two minors are you referring to?

These 2.

Those are definitions, not premises.

Both are observations. Neither one brings us closer to the noumenon.
It is a comparisson of 2 phenomena.

No, they are declarations of the meanings of the words being used. It has nothing to do with observation, rather of choosing word-to-concept language elements.

“We declare that ‘major premise’ means…”
“We declare that ‘minor premise’ means…”

Look, we were talking about what the difference is between rationalism and transcendental idealism.
I explained to you that transcendental idealism actually uses a major premiss in the logical syllogism.
You suggested that rationalism uses major premisses too.
I point out that your example of a major premiss is actually a minor premiss; proving my point.

Then suddenly you change your previous claim of what a major premiss should be into a declaration thereof…

What makes you think you can change the intent of your statements in the middle of a discusion and what makes you think that your declaration should trump the meaning everyone else uses?

A major premiss should be directly referring to a category. In this case you chose quality. An observation can make clear that a certain observed being seems to breathe (minor premisse ← phenomenon). A major premiss could be that some beings have an organ that enables them to breathe air. Since breathing air was observed, we can judge it affirmative and therefore, the concluding (minor) premiss is that this animal apparently has such an organ (<-- another phenomenon; which we can now connect to the noumenon).

What is going wrong here is that you are using the term category as if it is a collection. And your reasoning is that since the observed being shows signs of falling into this collection, it has these attributes. But this is the comparisson of 2 minor premisses. Definitions of collections are minor premisses; derived from multiple observations.

Do you see the difference?

Wait. Stop right there.
I asked what premises you were referring to and you quoted two definitions. If you meant only the examples within those definitions, then okay (should have made that clear) but you are incorrect anyway.

All mammals breathe air” is a major premise.

What makes you think that you can be blatantly ambiguous and not get yourself as well as others confused?

“All mammals …”
That looks a lot like a category to me.

That is NOT what a “minor premise” is or means. A minor premise, as I stated earlier, is a premise that refers to a specific rather than a category or generality.

So you need to come up with the right words for your intention.

That is an general observation followed by a reduced speculative deduction (non-sequitor).

P1) It appears that some animals have an organ that enables them to breathe air
P2) This animal appears to breathe air
Minor conclusion/speculation - “This animal” MIGHT have such an organ.

Well sorry if you don’t like what the word “category” actually means.

Don’t get all pissy with me just because you have gotten your language all scrambled.