Existentialism, Rationalism, Empricism

[BrassFusion]

I noticed Paper Hearts and Steven discussing this in another topic... Existentialism. I'm quoting the definition PH posted...

(Merriam-Webster)

Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism

Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.

I've heard the word "existentialism" before today, but the only definitions I've read were sort of circular, like (c/o Dictionary.com), "a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices."

Rationalism: "The doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience."

Empiricism: "The doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience."

I understand how rationalism and empiricism are mutually exclusive, but they both sound totally wrong. Logical reasoning that contradicts hard evidence shouldn't be trusted, but nor should sensory experience that defies reason. Both things should be weighed against the other, shouldn't they?

Oh well, sorry for the tangent, back to existentialism.

First, I don't see how it contradicts rationalism OR empiricism. A "self-determining agent" still uses reason and empirical evidence to make decisions, right? And as for the first definition of the word, how existentialism "centers on the analysis of..."

HOLD UP.

In order to qualify as a philosophy, shouldn't it make some assumption regarding logic or reality? As opposed to just being an "analysis?" CLEARLY we're all individuals and CLEARLY the nature of the entire universe is unfathomable, at least for now. So both of these definitions for existentialism seem totally redundant to me. Everything "exists," whether it's tangible or not.

I'd really appreciate if anyone here who's studied any of these three philosophies in depth would like to discuss them.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It translate to "I'm going to beleive any damn thing I want to even if it makes no sense at all to anyone but me. I used a really big word to describe it so I am smarter than you, go piss off."

[Paper Hearts]

Many times different "schools" of philosophy are not necessarily opposed attitudes, so much as they are opposed approaches to the central issue. It is the goal of the historian to label groups of thinkers by their appearance, rather than their ideologies and that is produced by a need of an individual to gain an unbiased and true perspective of the sensations they experience (by which ever method). These classifications are really more a set of labels by which one could more easily add different types of philosophy to a filing drawer. Often, philosophers who are said to share a same movement, are in contention with one another and often, philosophers are associated with more than one "movement"; while no philosopher has considered all of reality's ingredients. It is easier to explain this by describing 'philosophy' as so many street gangs. They are not diametrically opposed forces of awareness, as one inevitably will notice, but instead, they are actually several similar (perhaps identical in many ways) factions locked in a metaphysical "turf" war, against one another. Even as each member is a part of a gang, each belongs to the conflict for entirely private reasons. For this purpose, a philosophy is better characterized by it's sub-movements, which belong to the particular philosophers, separately. What you are examining, in essence (of Existentialism, Rationalism, Empiricism, per se), are generalizations, which belong to even broader generalizations still, and which exist entirely for historical purpose (as that which is referenced in dictionaries), rather than the most intimate explorations of subject/thought.

I've not read much philosophy beyond what I'd care to identify here as anything more broad than some postmodernist and post-structuralist writings, and for whatever reason, I enjoy if a philosopher belongs to both of those movements, like Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault (whom, by the way, argue with one another). However, I've noticed that I make frequent returns to Donatien Alphonse François, marquis de Sade, for comparison and basis. Perhaps this is because by my experience, there's nothing better than lying around and sometimes fucking and sometimes talking about the order of things, and fucking and philosophy seems to be the routine of Sade's various illustrations. I tend to equate everything to conversations I've had with women, in bed. Yes, I'm an absolute animal.

Overall, I dislike the idea of reading philosophy to gather a more thorough awareness. I'm actually more the style of reader who takes in philosophy to gain a better historical/factual perspective. In fact, I’m not sure that anyone really reads philosophy to get a grasp on one’s own mind. If there are people like that, I’m not completely in favor of them.

[Homicidalheathen]

hee hee!

It translate to "I'm going to beleive any damn thing I want to even if it makes no sense at all to anyone but me. I used a really big word to describe it so I am smarter than you, go piss off."

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Paper Hearts, you would make a good historiographer... They don't study history.. they study the people that write history. Trying to get in their heads to find out what really happened?

[Paper Hearts]

Paper Hearts, you would make a good historiographer... They don't study history.. they study the people that write history. Trying to get in their heads to find out what really happened?

Well, in a sense, I've nothing better to do.

[BrassFusion]

It translate to "I'm going to beleive any damn thing I want to even if it makes no sense at all to anyone but me. I used a really big word to describe it so I am smarter than you, go piss off."

NICE. I suspected that's what it meant.

And PH: I picked these three "schools" of philosophy to check out because they're all (supposedly) exclusive of each other. Especially rationalism and empiricism. "All knowledge is derived from reason without experience" vs. "All knowledge is derived from experience without reason." You can't get more exclusive than that. And if any philosopher was said to be a "rationalist," would that mean that he put NO stock in numerical data, and relied solely on logic? That's like forming a hypothesis and not bothering to do the experiment because you're so damn omnipotent you know how it'll turn out.

But then... how does one form a hypothesis without acknowledging past research? How does one use reason outside the arena of experience? You DON'T, and that's why babies and puppies are all so stupid. They're inexperienced.

I guess I just hope I'm still misinterpreting these definitions somehow. I don't want to believe that historians seriously consider people who are TRULY "rationalist" or "empiricist" based on what I understand either of those definitions to mean.

[BrassFusion]

Paper Hearts, you would make a good historiographer... They don't study history.. they study the people that write history. Trying to get in their heads to find out what really happened?

And not to jack my own thread, but are there historiographiographers?

People who study historiographers?

[Paper Hearts]

And not to jack my own thread, but are there historiographiographers?

Yes, there are such people but they're usually the people you find out side of universities selling macramé. It's like art history, it normally doesn't pay well. You'd typically be self employed and completely reliant on writing pens, and it frequently leads to bad knitting and bartering for one's basic needs.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Nope.

BTW... ever read Plato? All of his writings are based on pure Logic.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Historiographers usually make a pretty good dime. That whole PHD in history thingy... most are also Profs at major Unis.

[BrassFusion]

Nope.

BTW... ever read Plato? All of his writings are based on pure Logic.

It's one thing to base all one's writings on logic. Y'all might notice that I RARELY do in-depth research of something before I form a general opinion of it. It's because I'm a true believer in logical reasoning, and I'm lazy.

But did Plato actively eschew numerical data? Did he praise logic as the source of ALL knowledge?

And how do you reconcile it when two rationalists disagree? Logic isn't supposed to be flawed or malleable, so any two logicians who defend anything as a positive truth should always be in complete agreeance. Otherwise they aren't really firm logicians.

Edit:

Historiographers usually make a pretty good dime. That whole PHD in history thingy... most are also Profs at major Unis.

He meant historiographiographers. You know... select students of historiographers.

I bet a lot of aspiring historiographers end up poor, actually. It happens in every field. You can't swing a cat around a university without hitting someone who sucks at his major, or is just stupid in general, but doesn't want to admit it to himself. They can probably get the diplomas, but it'll take them forever and they'll never get jobs in their fields.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

People are people. We make mistakes. We use flawed logic.

Math and numbers don't come up in Plato that often. Thought is all that really matters... because that is all we really are.

[BrassFusion]

People are people. We make mistakes. We use flawed logic.

Math and numbers don't come up in Plato that often. Thought is all that really matters... because that is all we really are.

Rational thought can't exist without experience as a context. BAM. Plato = pwnt.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

"A thing does not need to become different from another thing which is already different; it is different, and if it's different has become, it has become different; if its different will be, it will be different; but of that which is becoming different, there cannot have been, or be about to be, or yet be, a different - the only different possible is the one which is becoming."

-Antiphon to the Clazomenians

My favorite qoute from one of my books on Plato.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Experiance is only thought.

[BrassFusion]

"A thing does not need to become different from another thing which is already different; it is different, and if it's different has become, it has become different; if its different will be, it will be different; but of that which is becoming different, there cannot have been, or be about to be, or yet be, a different - the only different possible is the one which is becoming."

-Antiphon to the Clazomenians

My favorite qoute from one of my books on Plato.

Since you've studied this, can you paraphrase it for us? It sounds like kind of a mixed up translation and it's hard to tell just what he's getting at.

Experiance is only thought.

Experience can exist without thought, like a tree falling in the forest or Terri Schiavo getting smacked across the face. There's no reason to believe that experience isn't real when it colludes with other experiences we have so extensively. What else could we base physical laws like gravity on? They don't follow logic in and of itself- they're just there, and ALWAYS there.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'll give it a shot...

Everything is itself. Even two things that look exactly a like are different. Even the one thing is different than it was before and even that is changing.

This is all part of a conversation about sociaty and being onself. If everyone and everything was exaclty the same... nothing would happen. Everything has to be different from everything else. Somethings can be really simular, but still, they are different. You also can't be so different that your not part of it anymore and still expect the benifits of being part of it.

Be your self, it's all you have. Just don't expect that self to be what it is today, tommorrow.

Life, as Plato puts it, is a great big machine. We are all part of that machine. Doing our part to make the machine work. Many of us are very simular to each other. Some are so different that few recognize thier function. Some are so different as to not be part of the machine anymore... and they can screw up the whole works. (Clock Tower Sniper)

One the other... Prove an experince without Thought. Schrodinger's Cat also comes to mind.

[BrassFusion]

I'll give it a shot...

Everything is itself. Even two things that look exactly a like are different. Even the one thing is different than it was before and even that is changing.

This is all part of a conversation about sociaty and being onself. If everyone and everything was exaclty the same... nothing would happen. Everything has to be different from everything else. Somethings can be really simular, but still, they are different. You also can't be so different that your not part of it anymore and still expect the benifits of being part of it.

Be your self, it's all you have. Just don't expect that self to be what it is today, tommorrow.

Life, as Plato puts it, is a great big machine. We are all part of that machine. Doing our part to make the machine work. Many of us are very simular to each other. Some are so different that few recognize thier function. Some are so different as to not be part of the machine anymore... and they can screw up the whole works. (Clock Tower Sniper)

One the other... Prove an experince without Thought. Schrodinger's Cat also comes to mind.

Lightning strikes a tree. The lightning doesn't know it's striking it and the tree doesn't know it's been striken. The experience can be deduced later by observers when a tree is found split down the middle and scorched. Though the observers are the only ones thinking about it, they weren't part of the experience.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Lightning strikes a tree. The lightning doesn't know it's striking it and the tree doesn't know it's been striken. The experience can be deduced later by observers when a tree is found split down the middle and scorched. Though the observers are the only ones thinking about it, they weren't part of the experience.

Deduced? You mean by using logical thought? You can't prove there was a tree without logic. You can have logic without experiance but you can't have experiance without logic.

[BrassFusion]

Deduced? You mean by using logical thought? You can't prove there was a tree without logic. You can have logic without experiance but you can't have experiance without logic.

The experience still happened, regardless of who decided it did. The point isn't "proving" whether it happened.

I'm a realist. If it happened, it happened.

You can experience things without logic, or reasoning, or exploring the deeper meaning of what's happening. And to have "logic" without "experience" is ludicrous. You have to experience a physical reality in the first place if you want to draw out logical assumptions about it.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Rationalism/Empiricism are about "knowing" or "finding". (Logic is a bit different as it generally is a mix of both not one or the other)

Really i think that both are extreme ideas that very few if any modern philosophers totally buy into. Generally you will not find many people that would try to argue that 110% adherence to either principal is realistic.

Often some of these things are rarely bought into by very few , and are more intellectual constructions to help define terms.

"I take a more rationalist viewpoint..."

"I tend to be more empirical in my reasoning..."

Rarely if ever "i'm totally rationalist in all my ideas" or "I rely totally on emperical data with no rationalism.".

Existentialism is more of a philosophy of life, that many actually live their life according to but are not aware

of the term. Its a fairly widely accepted idea. I really would have a hard time believing that there is no merit to it possiblily being the "true" nature of the "why?" question. For some its for some the logical extension of atheism. (many disagree with this extention as well, but its a fairly "arguable" point)

I'm not saying i personally buy into it, but i think its not something thats easily dismissed unless we want to say that we "know" what the proper moral code is for the universe and its not questionable.

It is , i think possible , that there is no independent naturally existing moral compass and its (perhaps) up to the individual/society/culture/whatever to create one. Thus "existentialism". Not nessisalry a pessimistic viewpoint but its often viewed as such.

[BrassFusion]

Rationalism/Empiricism are about "knowing" or "finding". (Logic is a bit different as it generally is a mix of both not one or the other)

Really i think that both are extreme ideas that very few if any modern philosophers totally buy into. Generally you will not find many people that would try to argue that 110% adherence to either principal is realistic.

Often some of these things are rarely bought into by very few , and are more intellectual constructions to help define terms.

"I take a more rationalist viewpoint..."

"I tend to be more empirical in my reasoning..."

Rarely if ever "i'm totally rationalist in all my ideas" or "I rely totally on emperical data with no rationalism.".

Existentialism is more of a philosophy of life, that many actually live their life according to but are not aware

of the term. Its a fairly widely accepted idea. I really would have a hard time believing that there is no merit to it possiblily being the "true" nature of the "why?" question. For some its for some the logical extension of atheism. (many disagree with this extention as well, but its a fairly "arguable" point)

I'm not saying i personally buy into it, but i think its not something thats easily dismissed unless we want to say that we "know" what the proper moral code is for the universe and its not questionable.

It is , i think possible , that there is no independent naturally existing moral compass and its (perhaps) up to the individual/society/culture/whatever to create one. Thus "existentialism". Not nessisalry a pessimistic viewpoint but its often viewed as such.

I strongly believe that there is no natural "moral compass" other than a critter's preference to generally not do things that are harmful to it, or its ability to reproduce successfully. So I've taken pre-existing sets of morals from religions and western cultures, went through them and threw out what I didn't feel applies to me, added a few that weren't in there, and christened a moral compass of my own.

If THAT'S what existentialism means, I can jam with it. I've never heard anything quite like that definition before.

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

I'm interested in existentialist philosophies (yes, each philosopher has their own philosophy) myself. Plus, there are tons of authors who have dabbled in existentialist thoughts, ideas, and theories. Each one of them has very different things to say and focus on, yet they all semm to fall into the realm of existentialism.

Basically, I agree with what Paper Hearts has to say more or less.

Before deciding that something is bullshit, why don't you read more about it, BrassFusion? People's arguements about philosophy on DGN aren't going to be anything like actually picking up a book by Sartre and reading it. Honestly, you might enjoy some of his writing. Or, you might think it's bs, and that's fine. Existentialism is often difficult to define, and I've not yet read a good definition that does it justice because it involves way too many sub-philosophies.

As far as people using big words and showing their intelligence, why not play intellectual games? Exercising the mind doens't hurt anyone. Sure, people can be pretentious. But, just because you have no clue what they're talking about doesn't make them a jackass.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I strongly believe that there is no natural "moral compass" other than a critter's preference to generally not do things that are harmful to it, or its ability to reproduce successfully. So I've taken pre-existing sets of morals from religions and western cultures, went through them and threw out what I didn't feel applies to me, added a few that weren't in there, and christened a moral compass of my own.

If THAT'S what existentialism means, I can jam with it. I've never heard anything quite like that definition before.

Yeah that, in essence is what it is. Just sometimes the language used to describe it gets a bit foggy and your like WTF are they talking about?

Humanism is another similar concept, and less fuzzy in its definition.