Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blackr3dd t1_ir6gnqx wrote

Reply to comment by BeedogsBeedog in Empiricism — the philosophy of Locke, Berkeley and Hume that argued knowledge was derived only from sensory experience (against Descartes’s Rationalists) and provided the philosophical foundation for the scientific method by thelivingphilosophy

No, it isn't, since the claim of empiricism is that all knowledge is derived from experience. It doesn't matter what analysis is done afterwards, considering that it wouldn't exist in the first place without the sensibility picking up on raw datum from the physical world.

2

BeedogsBeedog t1_ir96tni wrote

The experience is equally meaningless without analysis, there's an argument to be made that meaningful observations can't even exist without analysis. When you see the world that's not raw sensory input that's a picture your brain built out of it. Just because the analysis is automatic doesn't mean it's not important.

1

blackr3dd t1_irbtjq2 wrote

You're not even arguing against me right now. I don't deny the importance of reflection or reason. I am simply defending the claim that all knowledge is first derived from the senses.

Also, you could argue that, sensibility exists without reason, when you take a look at the animal kingdom. Whereas reason CANNOT exist without the sensibility. Imagine you're born into a world cut off from all the senses; impossible, since there would be nothing.

Thus it follows that sensibility is the independent and reason the dependant, it wholly relies on the subject to be able to perceive through sensibility.

1