     faisal abdi | Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 08:31 pm
Dear Readers
Who are the Empiricists? From the early days of empiricism, empiricism emerged and was a deliberate and defiant rejection of philosophic rationalism. Empiricism rejected the rationalistic building of great deductive systems of philosophy purporting to have grasped by the power of reason alone the nature of man and nature, and to have achieved complete complete certainty in this knowledge by the use of logical deduction from self evident axioms;;
In its sharpest rejection of this, empiricist are suspicious of metaphysical systems constructed by reason alone....
Empiricism constructs no great metaphysical systems of philosophy, it offers no speculations or world views for humans to live. It remains only a theory of knowledge, a theory of what we can know,,,,
Now, the point,,,,Empiricists claim that "we can know reliably only what comes to us by sensory experience, by observation, and experiment, and by testing through experience,,,,Empiricism is thus basing our knowledge upon the senses, upon the flux of the sensible world, which the two great rationalists, Plato and Descartes, rejected as an inferior way of knowing the truth/reality.
From this basis in sensory experience as the source and test of our knowledge-what we know and what we can know-Empiricism as a theory of human knowledge---what humans can know--becomes a powerful engine of destruction, or simply a theory against all the structures built by reason in philosophy and and religious beliefs. Empiricism demolishes them for providing no knowledge at all to the human mind....
Empiricism as a theory raises two questions about our ability to know:::first, :
---for any proposition in any field whatsoever that purports to tell us about the world, the empiricists raise the seemingly simple, seemingly innocuous question:"how do you know" To this little question, there is only one kind of acceptable answer,""sensory observation""To the empiricists, if you can not answer the question How do you know? by showing that what you know rests upon your sensory experience, observation of data, or experimentation with data, you have no knowledge-you know nothing, and your claims to knowledge are worthless...
the second quetion of empiricists, like the first one, was designed as an attack upon all rationalism, whether in religion or politics.But the greatest damage empiricists have done so far is in the religion side...they have almost demolished all religious explanations,,and so far, no religion withstood against emiricism,,,,the second questin is::what is the human mind and what are its limits ,,what is it equiped to know???
As an example.... just an example ,,,to the empiricists,,,the simple sentence of """ i believe in god""" is meaningless and is based on nothing but hearsy,,,an empiricist would argue,,how do you know that there is a god??/through your sensory perception,,,,no , no not through your sensory perception,,,either you have seen god personally or you havent in which case,, you appeal to tradition passed from generation to generation,,,that i believe in god because my father believed in god and his forefathers too...To the empiricists, this alone constitutes ignorance for you can not justify your ground no matter what,,
Finally, a word of caution for these brotheres who are delving into this subject of philosophy, particularly the philosophy of Hume and Locke...
Approach these subjects with a sense of detachment,,ie,,,look from their prespective and see what their implications are before delving deeper, i can tell you ,,if you do otherwise, you will definetely become another empiricist refuting anything even religious principles,,,,
eid wanaagsan to all of you ,,, |
| Adam | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 09:25 am
faisal
you are really amazing guy,,,,,,,,, |
| Mercutio- | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 12:20 pm
FAYSAL YOU A FUCKING CRAZY.
BUT THANX FOR THE INFO.
BUT "HOW" DO YOU KNOW WE CARE ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT DID YOU "SEE" ME TAKE AN INTREST.
AM GETTING THE HANG OF THIS SHIiiT. |
| Estrella | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 12:56 pm
During the "age of Enlightenment" (the 17th and 18th centuries) the empiricists were to be found in Britain. Locke was English, Berkeley Irish and Hume was born in Scotland.
In Lock, Berkeley, and Hume there are three very different forms of Empirism. However they all agree that knowledge must be based on experience, but each draws a different conclusion about where that thesis take us. Locke defends realism, Bekley argues for idealism and Hume lands us in the most radical skepticism.
However they have not demolished religion explanation Faisal Abdi. But they argue that religion is illusion. They claim that religion distorts reality by encouraging the belief thatpeople are dependent upon supernatural beings or sacred powers. For example, the belief that events are controlled by supernatural powers means that there is little people can do apart from trying to influence the supernatural power by prayer, sacrifice or some other means. in this way, religion obscures the human authorship of, responsibility for, social inequality and thereby discourages the realization that working for social changes may be possible and desirable.
Also it could be argued in some cases that religion often appears to lend sacred support to the current social order, and in so doing reinforces prohibitions against actions which would challenge those in power. |
| FAISAL ABDI | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 06:22 pm
ESTRELLA..
Analytic philosophy is a serious subject that is dangerous particularly to those whose belief in religion is not strong,,,,,through abstract theories, one is forced at the end by reason to accept the undeniable fact that""ultimate reality is based on our sensory perception"""
let me clarify this a little and go back into the philosophy of Hume...
let us take a closer look at Humes philosophy...
1--Hios treatise of human nature
In this treatise, he says that his purpose is to study the science of man and to explain the principles of human nature,,according to hume, to study the science of man is really to study the science of human nature...What Hume intends to do is to ask, with regard to all our knowledge two simple questions////
------ How do you know?what is the origion of your knowledge?
--------What are the limits of human knowledge?
These are the questions Empiricism raises, and Hume pushes them consistently and lellentlessly....and he already knew what he will show:::"that we hace no knowledge, but beliefs which we feel are true
Why did Hume, in hot pursuitof philosophers with these empiricit questions,begin his treatise with the search for the foundations of human knowledge?..If you read his works,then you know the answer,,that his purpose is only to show that there is only one source of knowledge.."the sense perception""
RELIGION,,HUMES ATTACK UPON THE RATIONALISTIC PROOFS OF GOD
As for the classical proofs of the existence of god,,hume rejects them all,,He argues"reason can not prove anything about existence" It can offer omly logical proofs....
In his treatise on religion,,Hume further argues that the existence of god is not a self evident idea, nor a logically demonstrable truth...According to Hume,,one can deny the existence of god without contradicting himself and others....let me quote him directly ..(((Our ideas reach no further than our experience. We have no experience of devine attributes. I need not conclude my syllogism. You can draw the inference yourself"""" )
Hume simply says:::the claim that a conscious mind, a supreme designer., namely god , designed the world and planned it purposefully for mankind----Upon what sensory perception,,ie ,,experience is this based?//Hume answers,,since we have no sensory impression of god as the designer of the world, how did you get that knowledge?
These arguments in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were Humes most powerful attacks upon religion as whole....He finally raises the question,,why then do we accept this mistaken belief in the existence of god on the basis of the argument from design?
The destructiveness of empiricism is visible and clear to everyone with a sense of purpose,,Hume did the terrible mistake and ppl believed his philosophy,,,even today ,,Hume lives in the universities where he is building his fortress...
Even on hisa death bed,,Bosswell-a freind of Hume--asked him"dont you believe now that there is a life after death,that there is a god who created the world?"Hume replied" yes, it is possible that there is a god..and he adds at the end" it is also possible that if i toss this piece of coal into the fire, it will not burn"///possible, but there is no basis for believing it--not by reason, and not by sense perception, and not by experience,,
That is the philosopher,,the great philosopher-as the world calls him--tragedy,,and that is what i meant,,,,approach philosophy with total detachment....
EID MUBAARAK |
| Hebel | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 06:36 pm
Empiricism: Philosophy); My Freaking branch of philosophy claims; That sense perception is the only reliable method for reaching the truth/reality whicha and is the only way of testing my truth and reality;
.
.
I HATE YAR FREAKING HATS, UNDERWEAR, CANBAR AND EVERYTHING U SMELL ABOUT.
.
.
I DEARLY DO.
.
C? |
| faisal abdi | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 12:06 am
Hebel
you are really parking like a dog
eid mubarak |
| Mr dump | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 08:32 am
you are all creazzy especially Estrella and Faisal Abdi you two need serious help other ways your little brians will pop out.
Eid mobarag |
| faisal abdi | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:52 am
mr dump
are we really crasy? on the contrary, we are ppl like you and please stop the nonsense talk and say something meaningful.
happy new year |
| Aamino | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 11:19 am
Faisal
you are everywhere in the room,,
happy new year |
| Anonymous | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 01:08 pm
Faisal you philosophy freak I don't know who in their right mind would study crab like that. One question though is empiricism a branch of philosophy named after empiricus? well if its then its garbage on top garbage. However the only philosopher well a mathematician whose work I recommend you read is descartes. I don't believe you'd actually come here and fool people into thinking you're an intellect only rejects and losers major in philosophy. |
| Anonymous | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 01:11 pm
oh and next time when you want to post leave your philosophy textbook aight. |
| Omar | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 06:43 pm
I am not in the field of Philosophy, however, it has always been a fascinating subject to me. With all respect of people whom are in the field, philosophy of religion should not be confused with religion, nor with theology; religion involves acting upon one's philosophical convictions regarding religious experience, whereas philosophy limits itself to an evaluation of religious believes.
There is no question that with the exception of Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, these three guys, Locke, Berkley and David Hume did more than all the other great philosophers to establish the empirical movement in British thought. They expounded the metaphysical basis for their approach to problems of knowledge and truth. But what I am questioning to myself is how much their quests were unrestricted by bias, authority, faith, seizing upon all pertinent data as a means of attaining the most coherent evaluation.
Does anybody know if any of above-mentioned philosophers was a Solipsist (Solipsism = the belief of an Individual that he alone exists, while the rest of the world exists only in his imagination)? Or what kind of faith they had? I heard that Berkley was an Epistemological Dualist, but I am not sure… I am just curious
Eid Mubarak and Happy New Year. |
| KADIIJO | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 11:40 pm
FAISAL
UNSWER OMARS QUESTION PLEASE, WE ARE ALL EAGER TO HEAR YOU |
| Estrella | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 06:26 am
Empiricism is a believe that all knowledge comes from experience. The "empirical world" is the world of the senses, i.e. the world we can feel, touch, hear and smell.
Faisal you said Empiricist would argue "how do we know that there is a God". Well there is proof of God's existence Faisal. Let me put it this way. If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricated mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had designed.
Now look at the universe, is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of the planets around the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed , and the being that designed it must be GOD.
So God is the perfect being. As he is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, therefore as He is perfect HE MUST EXIST.
Everything that exists has a cause. However there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'Prime Mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.
And yes Pascal's Wager, Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx and Soren Kierkegaard and many other philosophers have different views about God but they can't argue the Points above. Nor can we.
OMAR Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exist' or 'my mental states are the only mental states.
OMAR No great philosopher has been a solipsist. And as a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from the common sense. In view of this, you might ask why the problem of solipsism should receive any philosophical attention. Well there are two answers to this question, but of which meant clear articulation. First, it is True that no great philosopher has in fact espoused solipsism, but this can be attributed entirely to the fact that inconsistence has been a more prevalent feature of philosophical reasoning that is commonly acknowledged, in that many philosophers have failed to accept the logical consequences of their own mast fundamental commitments and preconceptions.
The second reason why the problem of solipsism merits close examination is that it is bases upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance.
(1) that what I know most certainly are the contexts of my own mind. My thoughts, experiences, effective states, etc.
(2) that there is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical.
(3) that the experiences of a given person are necessarily private to the person. These presuppositions are unmistakable Cartesian provenance, and are of course, very widely accepted by philosophers and non-philosophers alike. |
| Mr dump | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 06:35 am
ok i give up you two are outsiders i don't really believe that you are somali's so who are you. two cadiif-cadayaal ah oo is ka digaayo somali. aaaaaaaaah walidin khabtay. ma is khabtiin adinka. huh tell the truth now ok.
Why do you two have an unswear to every thing That is you Estrella and you abowe Faisal. no but ronta sheega yah.
Happy New Year to you all. |
| faisal abdi | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 10:19 am
Estrella
Yes, i agree with you on certain points here, but your example of the clock --that is where we disagree basing our argument with empiricist principles,,,
Since knowledge comes to us through our sense perception, one can assume with certainty that there is a creator of the watch for the simple reason that we saw the maker of the watch...nevertheless,,,in the case of the exiistence of god,,empiricists reject the idea of the existence of god because all our knowledge of him is not based on our sensory perception, nor is it based on our experience...and because of that any explanation as to the existence of god is likely to be rejected from the point of view of empiricist,?
As to Solipsism-it is a view that my mind with its thoughts is the only thing that exists: the only reality: and that other persons and the physical world are only ideas within my mind..
Solipsism is dangerously close to being a philosophic expression of the form of insanity called schizophrenia. One striking feature of the schizoprenic personality is his withdrawal from the common world of reality into his own private world, in which his mind and his thoughts are all that exists for him
happy new year |
| Jamac | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 08:32 am
Faisal Abdi, why you trying to be some hot shot and repeat what Estrella said already about the bloody Solipsism. Estrella also answeared the question Omar asked (the one you wouldn't answer or couldn't answer) and she/he (estrella) clearly gave an answer to the question and already said that solipsism is the view about the ........ and •••• like that. please stop repeating what ever every one els says cause once is enough for me and the likes of me. Got it.
Don't get upset know ok. LoL it is only the truth.
cheerio.
ps Eid is over man. |
| Jiir | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 07:57 am
Hebel
If you don't undersatnd the subject, it's better that you shot your mouth and keep your fingers close to your head.... you don't need to touch the keyboard....
bro take it easy
By the way I like the subject though I understand a little or nothing, but I still like it and I learnt something from it.
Bye |
| Leyli | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 08:42 am
Hi people,
Philosophy students or may be moderate philosophers, thanks for sharing your knowledge. I do sincerely appreciate you efforts.
Personally, I'm interested. Although I don't know much about this field at the momment, eversince I was young I believed philosophers are exceptional people..and trully they are.
Keep inspiring folks like me, you may never know one day I will be a PHILOSOPHER my self.
Take care,
Leyli |
| Hebel | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 08:07 pm
Jiir I'll shut my mouth if U shut something else.
.
.
I smell a rotten cheese man.
.
Are U breaking air here or what? |
| Qaali | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 03:05 am
Hebel
So far you seem to be acting hysterically..i hope you look into your conduct in this forums and adopt the necessary changes ..an advice,, |
| jamac | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 12:40 pm
Since when was hebel a good guy!!? damn he is twisted,,please bro, we like arguments of philosophy, i bet u wouldnt mind if we ask u to stop the nuisance |
| Hebel | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 06:44 pm
Qaali I'll get hysterical with U if U want chic.
.
Jaamac put a shoe in it, man...stay out my way IM about to get hysterical now.
.
.
This whole page is out to get hysterical and need to be unhystericalled.
.
Y’all out of order...What does anyone know about hysterical.
.
I'll hysterical yar asses alright. |
| John Welsh | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 05:50 am
Hey, fuc' you all stupid somalis
My name is John Whelsh, and i am not a nigga ass
somali. I would just like to tell you what the real western philosophical ideas are from the famous 1942 russel, yeah, just wait a second i have seemed to lost all knowlege in this topic so therfore i am going to have to resort in naming and shaming somalis. Since I am almost finished i would just like to tell you somlis one thing "GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY"
Now that's what i call philosophy........ |
| Hebel | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:42 pm
Now that's what I call: One conservative republican, soon hope to be the Attorney General, from deep deep south, Hysterically charged undercover Flight13
Grammatically challenged, who spells Niger like a Negro from the cotton fields of Mississippi…Freak.
.
.
So Hysterical, I may add. |
Philosophy);;This branch of philosophy claims that sense perception is the only reliable method for reaching the truth/reality and it is the only way of testing that truth/reality;;;;;;;;;;;;;;