[ExI] [Extropolis] simplified epistemology
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Mon May 10 19:41:58 UTC 2021
I have read a bit of Peirce and James but cannot say that I fully
understand pragmatism. So I will deal with it as a nonphilosopher: it
seems to me that being pragmatic uses the knowledge you have rather than
being a source of knowledge. bill w
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:09 PM Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> I added pragmatism, but maybe you missed my post where I responded
> directly to yours.
> The problem with the term rationalism is it’s like materialism: there’s a
> use inside philosophy that isn’t exactly as the same outside philosophy.
> Rationalism doesn’t mean just using reason and logic in philosophy, though
> that is how it’s used in everyday talk. I mean if someone unschooled in
> philosophy were to say she’s a rationalist, you probably wouldn’t presume
> she was a follower of Descartes and believed in innate ideas. (Likewise, in
> everyday use, a materialist is someone who chases after wealth and values
> that more than friendships, family, etc. In philosophy, it means someone
> who believe that physical reality is really all there is. That person might
> be an ascetic in personal life and be a people person who feels their time
> volunteering to build homes for the poor is more important than having a
> big bank account.)
> Anyhow, you might be better served by reading this:
> It goes over stuff I mentioned and more and in more detail and is by two
> professional philosophers.
> On May 10, 2021, at 8:56 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> "Rationalism means this." "No it means that." "It should be included
> under...." "No I disagree." Nothing says 'philosophy' like the 12 men and
> the elephant metaphor.
> I think since no one actually added any epistemologies I'll go with what I
> have. bill w
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 5:34 PM Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
>> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 11:55 AM Lawrence Crowell
>> <goldenfieldquaternions at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would consider deduction, the use of formal rules, and induction, a
>> proposition based
>> > on a large number of outcomes or calculations, as two forms of
>> Rationalism is usually more about the source of knowledge (intuitions,
>> innate ideas, concepts) and the structure (it's usually
>> foundationalist, meaning it views knowledge as a hierarchical
>> structure kind of like a building) than about purely the use of forms
>> of reasoning. In fact, rival epistemologies also use forms of
>> reasoning too. So that's not the differentiating feature here.
>> Descartes is usually seen as a Rationalist and he mostly held you
>> moved from innate ideas to further developments of these. Locke, often
>> seen as the Empiricist wasn't against using logic (though his ideas on
>> logic are a wee confused). And perhaps the arch-empiricist is J. S.
>> Mill who actually came up with Mill's methods:
>> Sample my Kindle books via:
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat