Timeline for Kant's refutation of empiricism
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2014 at 1:34 | comment | added | EleventyOne | Fair enough. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. Thank you for your contribution. | |
| May 22, 2014 at 1:20 | comment | added | virmaior | @EleventyOne I don't think the layman has an experience of Kant, empiricism, or Hume -- terms which I asked you to clarify when you asked the question... The average layman at best has no idea what they thought or what empiricism means in philosophy. Moreover, your question doesn't reference "mind" and there's no way to intuit that's the angle of the debate between Kant and Hume you are interested in... | |
| May 22, 2014 at 1:13 | comment | added | EleventyOne | I appreciate your attempt to clarify. As for: "But you're basically asking the following -- explain the QM solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe in layman's terms without referring to details in the theories of classical or modern physics"... I think that is a very poor analogy. The layman's experience with the "ultraviolet catastrophe" vs. the "mind" could not possibly be any more different. From my experience, it is a common mistake in philosophy to assume that misunderstood theories are due to a lack of knowledge on the reader's part, rather than a poor description on the author's part. | |
| May 22, 2014 at 1:01 | comment | added | virmaior | @EleventyOne I've added a tl;dr version to the top. But you're basically asking the following -- explain the QM solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe in layman's terms without referring to details in the theories of classical or modern physics -- but for a question that is still open. | |
| May 22, 2014 at 0:59 | history | edited | virmaior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 583 characters in body
|
| May 22, 2014 at 0:54 | comment | added | virmaior | @EleventyOne I'm not quite sure what to tell you. This is philosophy.se. Without a definition of "empiricism" or a clear problem you're referring to, it's going to be hard to give you an answer that is tailored to what you do and don't know about philosophy. (The "educated layperson" standard is difficult to measure against -- where I did my undergraduate in the US, everyone has to take a philosophy course; where I taught in the US, everyone takes at least two). | |
| May 22, 2014 at 0:37 | comment | added | EleventyOne | I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the content here would carry little meaning to someone outside of philosophy. If empiricism is truly a theory of the mind, then its framework (and potential refutation) should, in my view, be able to be discussed in terms that would have meaning to the educated layperson. For instance: "Kant's answer to how we know is that as rational beings, we frame our experience in the unity of apperception using categories and forms". This won't mean much to anyone outside of philosophy. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 21:26 | history | answered | virmaior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |