English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

please explain :)

2007-01-08 21:27:15 · 7 answers · asked by adriancruz13 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

7 answers

It is the most real, the most vivid. It makes the strongest impact & will be remembered. Sure we may also learn from other people & from books, but there is no better teacher than experience, actually doing something yourself.

2007-01-08 21:31:18 · answer #1 · answered by amp 6 · 1 0

Experience is the primary source of knowledge because we're studying other peoples' experiences.

2007-01-09 06:16:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Only empiricists believe that experience is the primary source of knowledge. Many other philosophers have different epistemologies (theories of the source of knowledge).

I happen to be a rationalist, and believe that we can know a great deal not experienced based upon

1. my limited experience
2. the communication of others about their experiences
3. rational conclusions given data from 1 & 2

For example, my knowledge includes that if I lived in Antarctica without proper warmth gear, I would probably die of hypothermia.

I've never had hypothermia.
I've never been to Antarctica.

If experience was my primary source of knowledge, there would be no way for me to know that I would die of hypothermia (or other cold-related exposure) in Antarctica. But based on my experiences with illness and my experiences with cold, and based on the testimony of scientists who know about hazards to human health and the testimony of people who know Antarctica is cold, I know both of these things to be true.

An empiricist would insist that I don't know anything of the sort, but only that I believe it, which is not the same. That argument has validity, but I bet even the starkest empiricist would not bet $100 against even the "belief" that it is possible to die of exposure without proper protection in Antarctica.

2007-01-09 05:41:43 · answer #3 · answered by dorbrendal 2 · 0 0

Among other things, human nature is curious and egocentric. We all feel the need to find out for ourselves what things mean to us, individually and personally, even if we get in over our heads. We can learn about something from secondary sources, but it's not ours until it affects us directly. Even if we recognize sage counsel, we want to know what will happen once we personally get our hands on something. Every parent with teenaged children learns to their dismay that this is the case the first time they try to give advice. Parents learn that the validity of their own experiences don't usually sway their children's decisions from trying things anyway. It's build into our nature to validate what we ourselves experience rather than what we learn by secondary means.

2007-01-09 12:01:31 · answer #4 · answered by carpdiem55 2 · 0 0

Only theoretically.
On the one hand, in the past, you could not just imagine precepts of phisics. you had to experiment them to see if they are true. But today we do not really need to experience gravitation (throw an apple to see if it falls). We know it exists and we learn about it.
Still, on the other hand, if you experience something it really remains stuck in your mind, much faster than reading something in a text book.

2007-01-09 06:03:56 · answer #5 · answered by Ana 3 · 0 0

Life experienced gives us wisdom, and life read about, becomes knowledge and stays that way, till we apply it on to our own life.

2007-01-09 05:36:39 · answer #6 · answered by Abhishek Joshi 5 · 0 0

We are products of our environments, and our cell memory.

2007-01-11 23:57:11 · answer #7 · answered by Answerer 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers