Some AS Philosophy For You...
All knowledge is derived from experience. Discuss.
Empiricists believe humans attain knowledge through experience. Thus, no know is a priori. John Locke and David Hume are the most acclaimed empiricist philosophers.
Hume once stated that 'all our ideas are copies of sense impressions'. These 'sense impressions' he speaks of are derived from ones outward look on to the world. The example of of ones mother fits perfectly; every one's idea of a mother is different, as it corresponds to ones own individual experience of their mother. A mother leaves her 'imprint' on her child's understanding of what is mother is; an 'imprint' on their tabula rasa.
Experience is clearly needed for knowledge to be gained. A blind man will never Trula grasp the idea of colour. Stevie wonder once stated that he dreams only about sounds-what he knows. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is private (trapped inside ones head) and we use language as an outlet for our internal knowledge 'words without experience are empty' D Humes point is clear, and valid, no one can discuss which they have not yet experienced.
Even in nature it is difficult to establish necessary truths, as ones perspective is limited. This leads to inducted arguments, which are only assumed to create a conclusion which is hardly possible, and this in itself leads to contingent truths: which are clearly created by deflects in human knowledge.
There are implications to accepting the empiricist account. If all sense impressions are private, how can one know everyone sees the same shade of red. This leads to one doubting the strength of the relationship with the outside world and whether the outside world exists at all. These views lead to extreme solipsistic ideals, which can be reinforced by Hume 'all we experience is our experience of our own experiences' begging the question whether one is experiencing life first hand.
Empiricism certainly has its criticisms. It would appear that sense impressions are not necessary for ideas. Wittgenstein's analogy the of Beetle states all are carrying boxes (minds) one can see into ones own box, but not anyone else's. The objects being held in the boxes are being referred to as 'Beetle'. Of course, some boxes may not have a beetle inside, but a picture instead, and some boxes may be completely empty. However, what one does is use language to link ones individual interpretation of the sense impression (Beetle) to the word. One cannot explain ones sense impression, as the tools used to describe sense impressions (language) is a public matter and sense impressions are very private.
Another criticism would be that it seems humans do have some innate mathematical ability. Babies as young as a day old spend more time looking at simple mathematical puzzles which are incorrect than ones which are correct. This exemplifies how sense impressions are not sufficient for ideas.
The empirical view is strong, however it has lapses, not accounting for language or mathematics. It would be extreme to suggest all knowledge of language is acquired from experience alone. Standing alone, this view is empty. Kant's synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism has the most prominent argument 'filling' the gaps in both accounts. We 'manufacture' our own realities, using the 'tools' we are supplied with at birth- our own synthetic a priori knowledge. This too, however, may be problematic. If we 'manufacture' our own realities' is solipsism inevitable?
Symone xoxo
Empiricists believe humans attain knowledge through experience. Thus, no know is a priori. John Locke and David Hume are the most acclaimed empiricist philosophers.
Hume once stated that 'all our ideas are copies of sense impressions'. These 'sense impressions' he speaks of are derived from ones outward look on to the world. The example of of ones mother fits perfectly; every one's idea of a mother is different, as it corresponds to ones own individual experience of their mother. A mother leaves her 'imprint' on her child's understanding of what is mother is; an 'imprint' on their tabula rasa.
Experience is clearly needed for knowledge to be gained. A blind man will never Trula grasp the idea of colour. Stevie wonder once stated that he dreams only about sounds-what he knows. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is private (trapped inside ones head) and we use language as an outlet for our internal knowledge 'words without experience are empty' D Humes point is clear, and valid, no one can discuss which they have not yet experienced.
Even in nature it is difficult to establish necessary truths, as ones perspective is limited. This leads to inducted arguments, which are only assumed to create a conclusion which is hardly possible, and this in itself leads to contingent truths: which are clearly created by deflects in human knowledge.
There are implications to accepting the empiricist account. If all sense impressions are private, how can one know everyone sees the same shade of red. This leads to one doubting the strength of the relationship with the outside world and whether the outside world exists at all. These views lead to extreme solipsistic ideals, which can be reinforced by Hume 'all we experience is our experience of our own experiences' begging the question whether one is experiencing life first hand.
Empiricism certainly has its criticisms. It would appear that sense impressions are not necessary for ideas. Wittgenstein's analogy the of Beetle states all are carrying boxes (minds) one can see into ones own box, but not anyone else's. The objects being held in the boxes are being referred to as 'Beetle'. Of course, some boxes may not have a beetle inside, but a picture instead, and some boxes may be completely empty. However, what one does is use language to link ones individual interpretation of the sense impression (Beetle) to the word. One cannot explain ones sense impression, as the tools used to describe sense impressions (language) is a public matter and sense impressions are very private.
Another criticism would be that it seems humans do have some innate mathematical ability. Babies as young as a day old spend more time looking at simple mathematical puzzles which are incorrect than ones which are correct. This exemplifies how sense impressions are not sufficient for ideas.
The empirical view is strong, however it has lapses, not accounting for language or mathematics. It would be extreme to suggest all knowledge of language is acquired from experience alone. Standing alone, this view is empty. Kant's synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism has the most prominent argument 'filling' the gaps in both accounts. We 'manufacture' our own realities, using the 'tools' we are supplied with at birth- our own synthetic a priori knowledge. This too, however, may be problematic. If we 'manufacture' our own realities' is solipsism inevitable?
Symone xoxo
0 comments:
Post a Comment