What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses?
I don’t agree with the empiricism’s that our knowledge is based on our senses because as Descrates explain to us, if we find that what we know is based on the impulses transmitted to our brain then knowledge and reality can be whatever someone wants us to believe. Also Plato had the same observation in “The Allegory of The Cave” when he mentions the prisoners chained to view the stories projected by the superior people. That was their knowledge and it was based on what they see and hear. Empiricists argue that because of our experiences, we obtain knowledge.
When I was growing up, my parents were the type that kept me home when school was finished; I wasn’t able to go out and have my own experiences, so by observing my surroundings as I walked home, my mind took all the bits and pieces of my observations and gave me a knowledge of life in whole. Also knowing of God cannot be experienced, it doesn’t have a smell, or taste, and we can’t touch it. But we do know that God exists. I know that every time something goes my way, I always say ‘thank God’ and when I’m in need of help I always say ‘God please’. Our knowledge of God is limited but we do believe in God.
What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?
To support this theory that knowledge is based on our senses, we can simply look outside at the people wearing jackets. We feel cold; therefore we find ourselves a jacket. We see someone getting pulled over by a corrections officer, so we slow down. Some Knowledge can be based on our senses. In Chemistry, touching an acid may cause your hand to burn and fatally damage you skin cells, but what happens to knowledge we can’t always touch, see and smell. Science is a subject where predicting an outcome isn’t always the best idea. Our senses may tell us the solution may smell sweet but it could be deadly if we drank it. We cannot see atoms with our naked eye, and there are some people that don’t get the chance to look at one under a microscope, but knowledge of them still exists. For example, how many times have you wanted to try a dish at a restaurant that the person near you is having? The next time you go to the same restaurant, you try it and don’t find it as tasteful as it looked and smelled. That may be a problem when empiricists say that knowledge entirely is based on our senses.
You situate the different positions quite well here. It was interesting to read your own perspective on these views.
ReplyDeleteThankyou professor I don't entirely disagree with the empirical thought, but I do question its theory. I find Berkeley and Hume's perspective on empirical philosophy more understanding and valid. It could be because of the rational perspective combined with the empirical perspective that made me understand philosophy a bit better. I do agree with Kant's ideas on constructivism though. this theory i can acctually relate to as a human being and a thinker.
ReplyDelete