Timeline for Kant's refutation of empiricism
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2014 at 18:04 | history | bounty ended | EleventyOne | ||
| May 28, 2014 at 23:45 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | I'd agree that most empiricists wouldn't go along with Humes arguments. I certainly found them his critique of causality troubling - given that physics 'works'; I do wonder how many working empiricists - aka scientists - have heard of Humes work; given the troubling contemporary divison/situation between philosophy and science. | |
| May 28, 2014 at 23:34 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @senderle:Possibly not - they've been radically truncated! | |
| May 28, 2014 at 22:28 | comment | added | senderle | I like this answer, although I'm not sure Hume would have agreed with your characterization of his arguments! (I would say instead that Hume showed that empiricism entails radical skepticism of a kind that few "empiricists" today would willingly take on.) | |
| May 27, 2014 at 6:08 | comment | added | EleventyOne | Thank you for your response. From my reading so far, it seems like empiricism simply claims that an empirical metaphysics is not possible, while on the other hand it in fact serves as the very foundation for modern empirical science (e.g., physics, "ethics", psychology) - i.e., unless it can be observed, we can make no claims to its legitimacy. Again, from my early impressions, it seems like Kant is trying to argue that there is some knowledge that transcends experience (i.e., "a priori" knowledge). So, really, it seems like they're arguing about epistemology at this stage. More to read... | |
| May 22, 2014 at 4:01 | history | edited | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 552 characters in body
|
| May 22, 2014 at 3:53 | history | answered | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |