- Oct 6, 2008
- Basic Beliefs
Fromderinside: Stop and think a second where you get the idea there is such a thing as empiricism. I know there is such a concept and do not count that concept as "just an ad hoc idea. It is the result of rational consideration of the source of the information we use for any purpose at all. For this concept to become useful in any sense, including a moral sense, it must temper our communications with the very standards you and I both recommend...observation, experimentation, etc, to determine its veracity and reliability. It is a voluntary discipline and your examples (witch burning and commie persecuting, and other erroneous human behaviors) are the result of departing from that discipline.
The fact is that this concept...empiricism...is the result of noting errors in past supposed understandings or lack of consideration of actual human experience. Much of this misunderstanding is linguistic and based on the type of ad hoc conclusions you so loudly decry. You cannot abandon rational examination of the language we use to communicate our ideas. It has a direct bearing on whether or not humans understand each other.
I distinguish rationalism from scientific method by the fact that rationalism is a component of the scientific method and not the method itself.
So when you write "It is the result of rational consideration of the source of the information we use for any purpose at all. For this concept to become useful in any sense, including a moral sense, it must temper our communications with the very standards you and I both recommend", you are setting up a straw man.
When you attach observation and experimentation as I did to determine veracity and reliability of information you are cloaking rationalism as a valid approach to the study and determination of morality. Such in an obvious expansion of the meaning of rationalism. Rationalists took what was being done and rationally produced a philosophy of empiricism. Come on. Such philosophical intuition is fraudulent. The exercise of scientific method came before the intuition of empiricism so wrapping empiricism under the umbrella of ratinalism and thereby inferring the scientific method is a rationalist's invention is just plain false.
Suggesting that empiricism has any bearing on what I wrote is just bad form on your part. Rationalism is not a verified information based form of reasoning. By its classical structure rationalism is post hoc hearsay dominated form or idea management. Do not try to incorporate the work of those who invented metal weapons, agriculture, built the pyramids, etc as coming forth subsumed under the Greek enlightened notion of rational reasoning. JOhn had a problem. He had to make a shelter that was useful and easy to build. He sat down by a stream where there were reeds and fronds, took them, manipulated them, ultimately coming up with a tent-like structure. No self evident truths no this and this then that.
So what I preach as the result of using and exploring morality from the view of verifiability and utility has little in common with rationalism. I specifically reject hearsay from consideration beyond the point of such being a starting point for investigation and verification. Whereas moral reasoners using rational method produced justifications for murder, degradation, hatred, deceit all under the umbrella of rationalism. Please. Don't broach that barrier again. There are just too many instances where what I describe as subject to rationalism is true in the morality arena. Belief is not, language is not, valid tools for investigation nor determination of moral principles beyond being a historic tacker of what the hell went wrong with morality in various periods of history.
As for your final attempt to wrap scientific study of language under some rational cover you blow it when you use ad hoc experience, phenomena, to support your view that such study of linguistics can yield verifiable and useful result. There is no way actual ad hoc experience is verifiable since it is from the individual, self reported, phenomenal. Trying to claim there are scientific rationales is doing so using language analysis is just as rotten a scientific fruit as are first hand reports since they are bound by belief, hearsay, prejudice and self interest.