Do knowledge and theories stem from observation? (be it a priori or empirical)
2007-01-08 10:49:27 · 11 answers · asked by Diesel Weasel 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Sounds like you're asking which type of philosophy is valid, empiricism or rationalism.
Rationalists, of course, believe that they can know something by thinking about it. Empiricists believe that they can know something by experiencing it.
In order to prove that one of these two types of philosophy is exclusively valid, you'd have to quantify things that may not lend themselves to such an analysis. For example, say a rationalist claims to know something because he/she thought about it but didn't experience it. How could you determine whether or not the knowledge of the rationalist is based on thinking exclusively, or partly on thinking and partly on observation? And how much of each type of knowledge acquisition would you need to measure before you became convinced that the knowledge was indeed acquired by thinking and by no other means?
The same holds true for an Empiricist. In some cases there simply may be no way to determine how much of an Empiricist's knowledge about something was acquired exclusively through observation and not through thinking.
Even if you take the middle road and assume that all of philosophy must be based on both observation and thinking, how can you ever prove that this is the case? A determined rationalist or empiricist will stick to his/her guns and claim that all knowledge is acquired according to the beliefs of each and in no other way. How could you prove otherwise?
Just curious.
Big Al Mintaka
2007-01-08 11:27:33 · answer #1 · answered by almintaka 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A priori observation of consciousness I suppose. But can consciousness really observe itself?
2007-01-08 23:04:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think passion is the backbone to philosophy. Anyone can observe a given situation as far as their mind can take them. It is passion that will drive one past observation into the corridors of possibility and reason.
2007-01-08 23:23:12 · answer #3 · answered by Katia 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure that's exactly correct, because I've gained a lot of knowledge and theories about people by simply observing as much of what they do as I can :)
2007-01-08 19:42:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Where does a true revelation come from? If that exists, then I would imagine some philosophies aren't based on observation.
2007-01-08 19:10:54 · answer #5 · answered by American Ego 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that memory is the basis of Philosophy.The ability to remember the past and apply the out come of actions that have effected the present.The present is already the past.Oservation as important as it is without memory it is of no importance.
2007-01-08 19:40:49 · answer #6 · answered by WUGGY6X9 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thought and Perception, more so than Observation- In my opinion.
2007-01-08 20:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by ••Mott•• 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No; I submit it is introspection. One could be a philosopher with a minimum of "observation."
2007-01-08 21:22:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I feel Philosophy is mainly based on interpretation.
2007-01-09 07:25:04 · answer #9 · answered by Celebrity girl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Much of it does and it depends on how you process those observations.
2007-01-08 18:51:26 · answer #10 · answered by tchem75 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋