Off the cuff, here are a couple of thoughts and ideas that totally blew me off in tonight's philosophy lecture.
Anaximenes and Occam's Razor both advocate that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. With that theory in place, Anaximenes came to a conclusion that everything originates from air and figured that it is through the processes of rarefaction and condensation, that air becomes the following elements: fire, wind, water and earth. He felt that his theory was better and more accurate compared to Anaximander's, due to the fact that his explanation only consisted of 1 item while Anaximander's theory consisted of 5 items: fire, wind, water, earth and apeiron. Anaximenes was inclined to subscribe to the notion of simplicity, rather than complicated theories. Perhaps in life, it would make so much easier if we believed in the simplest of explanations. However, one has to reconcile the multitude of intricacies that come with everything, which are simply, not that simple in nature. Believing in the simplest explanations definitely simplifies things, but it may not always be right.
I am an engineering major, and hence naturally, most of my thoughts are ruled by science and logic. I believe that naturally, I am more of an Empirist, (best kind of knowledge is experience by senses and experiment) and the idea of Rationalists (no need for senses. by reason) is totally new to me. The idea of Realism is also foreign to me; that intellectual "things" are considered to be real objects and have truth of independence of human existence. The idea of that if a tree falls in the wood, it does not make a sound unless there is a receiver of the sound. In other words, sound does not exist unless it’s perceived. When a tree falls in the wood, sound waves are generated but it is not a sound unless there’s someone there to perceive the sound. It is a very abstract theory that disregards science, or common sense. Though my thoughts are very much skewed towards the scientific side, I am quite receptive to this new concept. After all, in all things, there is a giving end, and there’s the receiving end at the other side of the spectrum. When the receiving end is non-existent, whatever is being given out is inconsequential?
I may be blogging all these thoughts down here, but if there is no one to read what I’ve penned here, the blog doesn’t really count for much, does it?
Anaximenes and Occam's Razor both advocate that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. With that theory in place, Anaximenes came to a conclusion that everything originates from air and figured that it is through the processes of rarefaction and condensation, that air becomes the following elements: fire, wind, water and earth. He felt that his theory was better and more accurate compared to Anaximander's, due to the fact that his explanation only consisted of 1 item while Anaximander's theory consisted of 5 items: fire, wind, water, earth and apeiron. Anaximenes was inclined to subscribe to the notion of simplicity, rather than complicated theories. Perhaps in life, it would make so much easier if we believed in the simplest of explanations. However, one has to reconcile the multitude of intricacies that come with everything, which are simply, not that simple in nature. Believing in the simplest explanations definitely simplifies things, but it may not always be right.
I am an engineering major, and hence naturally, most of my thoughts are ruled by science and logic. I believe that naturally, I am more of an Empirist, (best kind of knowledge is experience by senses and experiment) and the idea of Rationalists (no need for senses. by reason) is totally new to me. The idea of Realism is also foreign to me; that intellectual "things" are considered to be real objects and have truth of independence of human existence. The idea of that if a tree falls in the wood, it does not make a sound unless there is a receiver of the sound. In other words, sound does not exist unless it’s perceived. When a tree falls in the wood, sound waves are generated but it is not a sound unless there’s someone there to perceive the sound. It is a very abstract theory that disregards science, or common sense. Though my thoughts are very much skewed towards the scientific side, I am quite receptive to this new concept. After all, in all things, there is a giving end, and there’s the receiving end at the other side of the spectrum. When the receiving end is non-existent, whatever is being given out is inconsequential?
I may be blogging all these thoughts down here, but if there is no one to read what I’ve penned here, the blog doesn’t really count for much, does it?
2 comments:
Rationalism doesn't discount the scientific. Think of rationalism as emphasizing the analysis part of the scientific experiment. Empiricism emphasizes the experiment part.
And if a tree falls in the woods... That idea is fundamentally empiricist, not rationalist. It doesn't discount science at all. Heck, most scientists would agree with that. The tree generates sound waves, but sound is a perceived quality. I'm not saying sound waves aren't made, and couldn't be recorded, but sound waves arn't sound.
Oh. Got it. Now i understand both rationalism and empiricism a bit more
Post a Comment