Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TikkiTakiTomtom t1_j72d1qy wrote

Some would argue that it is. That all of our experiences, sensations, decisions are all just chemical reactions enticing us to benefit ourselves in some way or form.

33

SuspiciousRelation43 t1_j744f0z wrote

This is getting suspiciously close to the old Rationalism versus Empiricism dispute. There is substance, and then there is form. What we might call reality-in-itself is both and neither of these simultaneously; rather, they are two opposing means of comprehension. They are contradicting yet interdependent aspects of our consciousness. They could also be phrased as perception and conception.

8

bac5665 t1_j75grnn wrote

I'm not trained in philosophy, so excuse the dumb question, but it seems to me to be obvious that rationality and empiricism are not in opposition. They answer different questions. Empiricism tells us what is. Rationality lets us make predictions about what might be. They are two unrelated tools, and it is only by using them together that we best acquire something we might call knowledge.

5

SuspiciousRelation43 t1_j75hs0t wrote

It’s not dumb at all. “Opposition” isn’t an accurate way to put it. I think your description is pretty good. I might summarise it as Empiricism, or sense, informs us of data or experience, while Rationalism, or reason, consists of the principles by which we order that experience. Judgement, interpretation, speculation, and others, are associated with and tend towards Rationalism; observation, experience, and so on are associated with Empiricism.

Which, I think, is the point of this article. Lower animals might be thought of as purely experience, appetite, and impulse-driven. In contrast, humans are far more capable of interpreting information from a limited set of experience.

3

imdb_shenanigans t1_j72m5r0 wrote

"human experience" lol. Call me when they could talk to my dog to see what his experience is like to even compare. This is like Actors awarding themselves Best Actor. Sure.

−3

kneedeepco t1_j7326jg wrote

Huh?

We don't have to talk to a dog to know it has differing experiences from us, though granted I would say dogs are probably one of the closer animals to humans as far as that goes. That's beside the point though, because we can easily derive that the eyesight and scent dogs have create a different sensory experience than we have.

Science has allowed us to begin to understand the experience of other animals, we don't have to "talk to them".

Bats clearly experience reality differently than we do, Bugs as well, etc... It's all essentially the function of an output determined by chemical/sensory inputs. That's basically what op was getting at.

14