Does all knowledge come from sense experience (empiricism) or from reason alone (rationalism)?
>>24747076Let's see what innate ideas you come up with after I lock you in my basement for 30 years.Oh? You just get brain damage? Damn...
>le faux dilemmesee picrel
>>24747076yes
>>24747076
>>24747076The capacity to think is innate to our biology, which is clearly demonstrated by our inability to do such things, if our biology is damaged. If you lesion your Broca's area, you'll struggle or be unable to form words.Knowledge however, must come from external sensory information, which we process using our innate biology, to produce usable wisdom.I feel that a good argument to support this, is that if you never told a blind person about the concept of vision, they would never consider it existed. Blind people struggle to understand the concept of colors, hues, or luster. It's a sensation completely inacessable to them, precisely because they have no ability to comprehend it.For a more humorous example, I remember reading a post years ago where someone said a deaf student in their class farting loudly, not reacting to what they'd done. The class stared at them, and explained that they heard the sound. The deaf student was shocked and embarassed to learn that farts made noise. They had no capacity to know they made sounds, until an external force told them so. And if no one ever told them sound existed at all, how would they realize its existence?You might say that people could discover these forces in the same way that we've been able to discover other forces we can't directly "see" or interact with, such as gravity or molecular forces, but all of those still required external sensory information to intuit
>>24747076maby both ??
>>24747091>muh synthetic a priorithis guy thought math was some kind of alchemy and reintroduced superstition in to philosophy
>>24747076you use reason to construct meaning out of sensory stimuliso I guess both
>>24747076From communion. Some of which is sensory, some is rational, some is spiritual.Also, the answer will generally depend on your theory of truth. If we're talking correspondence theory then the question can never be answered to begin with (even one answer is objectively correct) since we can never know to know something. Some propositions in our heads might correspond to a fact out there in the world, but to definitely know this is the case we'd have to step around this barrier at least once, which under correspondence theory doesn't seem to be possible.Lastly, forget Descartes. Logical certainty doesn't imply existential certainty. Cartesian systems (like positivism) are unsustainable. Self is not just an infinitely small point of view from within our head. It's all bs.
>>24747076Gnosis
>>24747076Reason is also experienced.
