Bacon, ( aka chris?) said that empircist are like ants thats makes every thing useful, while, rationalist are like spiders who spins web out of themselves.
what does this means, the rationalist are crazy or special and the empiricists are good healthy employees and someone who is not special?
IS it that wise men are rationalist and empircist are intelligent people?
Dan, I was having this very same discussion with a friend of mine not 2 weeks ago. The only difference between the two questions is vocabulary; I find the question better explained when it is looked at in terms of introverts and extroverts. Introverts are clearly are clearly rationalists and extroverts, empiricists. To be just in determining the qualities of each catergory, I will announce myself as an introvert and that I contain a small bias toward introvertial thinking.
First, let us name the great introverts and extroverts. Charles Darwin and Karl Marx were two of the greatest extrovert thinkers, and for introvert thinkers we have Wittgenstein, Jung, and Nietzsche. It is clear from these examples that extroverts/empiricists tend to be scientists while introvert/rationalists lean more toward philosophers. What can be gained from this is that extroverts are more concerned with what they can see occuring visibly, change that can be measured with the scientific method and such. Introverts ponder metaphysics, the philosophy of the mind, of religion, of subjects that are unknown how to measure. If you were to minimualize such qualities to the level of an average person in society, you would see how their placement would formulate. It is not to say that one way of thinking is better or worse than another, because both are nessicary. In the most general of terms, introverts are usually more creative and “special” because they strive to acchieve individualization while extroverts strive to improve existing objects and systems. Again, introverts create, extroverts improve.
I don’t think that it’s easy to say which type of thinker is more intelligent. Intelligence means problem-solving ability. It means the ability to think well. Sadly, this does not at all correlate with the tendency to USE this ability. Hitler was a very intelligent person, but he clearly didn’t use his extreme intelligence in a way any of us would approve of. There are very intelligent philosophers who believe in god and think that they can rationally justify their belief. These people are simply wrong, and they are wrong because, despite their intelligence, they have never learned how to think well, or precisely.
Now, certainly it will be the case that either rationalists or empiricists are more intelligent on average - the odds that they average out to the same are very low, surely one group has to have the higher average. However, it seems very difficult to tell which it would be, without conducting some kind of study.
Now regarding their roles in human knowledge - there is a big difference between empirical knowledge, and rational knowledge. Rational knowledge (math) is unquestionably true, whereas empirical knowledge can always be doubted (a la Descartes if by no other more practical means), and is often more of a statistical belief rather than a pure True / False dichotomy. This difference draws many people towards the rationalist view, but I think this is a mistake. There are many mathematical truths to be had, but so much of what philosophers want to investigate - free will, identity, consciousness, morality - are rooted in this specific reality, and we make more progress on those concepts via empirical knowledge than we can via pure rationality.
Intelligence just speaks to ability; but the wise person knows that both rationality and empiricism are necessary routes to knowledge.
Glady to say, you have revive my confidinence of this post.
I see , I see what you both are talking about. But sadly, you did not say whom is smarter the most, the empiricist or rationalist.
I was thinking about from reading Mr pin
who is the most smartest, powerful, and well known for the rationalist and the empiricist, but after reading further, this question became less interesting.
mr pin
T~
both quotes are similar, and it is about balanced IF everyone is well balance in the degrees of empiricist and rationalist then we will all be equal. Far as I know then, the way of thinking seems something to do with the separation of equality.
who is the smarter man; a profound philosopher who lives in the hills and is a recluse barely making a living with his writing, or a tradesman making
$50-80,000 a year , id say intelligence is potential and the only thing that matters is how you use it.
who cares if i am the most intelligent person on the planet(id rather be the most sucessful)
There is no objective measure of success. It may be that the philosopher’s definition of success is to amass as much truth in his mind as he possibly can. In that case… well, he may still have failed, depending - but it would certainly be working towards that goal!
You can often measure how successful someone is by how happy he is. There are many people who make a lot of money who are very unhappy. The job of Investment Banker is very lucrative, and also very awful; I wouldn’t take it for three times the money. That’s because of my definition of success - a happy life, and having changed the lives of others for the better.
Just because you’re smart doesn’t mean, well, ANYTHING except that you’re good at taking certain kinds of tests, or figuring certain things out. Mind you, I think intelligence is one of the mightiest gifts a person can have; but I know people who aren’t terribly intelligent who are making quite a difference in the world, and I personally know a very very smart man who is filled with self-loathing and self-doubt and not making anyone’s life any better, despite his amazing gifts.
i agree that we define success for ouselves. i also think that intelligence can’t really be measured(as there are too many facets of intelligence to devise a test which incorperates them all)
I’m not sure equating rationalism with introversion and empiricism with extroversion works. Personally, I am very introverted but tend to agree more with empiricists than rationalists. And what do you do with Kant? He kind of walked the line between empiricism and rationalism, but he was extremely talkative and extroverted. Are you seeing intoversion and extroversion as actual personality traits here or just ways of thinking?
Theonefroberg the points you make were very true, and you must forgive me for not fully explaining my reasoning. The statement I made about introverts and extroverts was a very “general” statement, and in retrospect I realize that I may have been out of place. Empiricists can create as well, but generally their work adheres to specific guidelines such as scientific laws. As with a person such as Kant, well I believe that he walked the line, as you say, between introversion and extroversion as well as empiricism and rationalism. Definitely an outstanding philosopher, because of his incorperation of both ways of thinking. =D>
Actually, while I do think looking at it in terms of personality traits like introversion and extroversion may not be the best way to examine rationalism vs. empiricsm, I find your way of looking at it as very interesting. I’m in a personality psychology class, and right now we’re talking about Jung, who was largely responsible for the introvert/extrovert distinction. I honestly would have never thought of that great philosophical debate that way. I applaude your creativity and imagination =D> .