John took a wiki-look at "Rationalism vs. Empiricism":
The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two philosophies
is that strict empiricists reject all *a priori* truths, decrying any belief in
innate knowledge or intuition -------- So to an empiricist, "belief" is the
problem. Do they believe this strongly? And from what "facts" is it derived?
dmb says:
Those are very broad terms and every thinker is some mixture of the two so it's
really just a matter of emphasis but basically we're talking about the
classic-romantic split or, as James put it, the tough minded and the tender
minded. They both take the view that each school appeals to a different
temperament or personality style.
Remember that classroom scene in Chicago wherein Phaedrus the Ph.D. student
confronts the Chairman about the truth of Socrates's analogy? In that analogy,
the human soul is represented a chariot pulled by two horses, one is wild and
passionate and the other is the rational part of the soul. In that analogy, the
passions want to lead you down to earth and down into the desires of the flesh
while the rational part wants to lead you upward toward the good and the true
and the beautiful. From this point of view, empirical reality and the senses
are not to be trusted. That's the low stuff that you're supposed to try and
rise above. This is the original rationalism. It was spiritually oriented,
otherworldly and very anti-empirical.
Much later, rationalism was the notion that the truth could be arrived at
through pure reason, the way whole mathematical or geometric systems can be
built up from a few basic axioms or foundational principles. Descartes and
Spinoza are rationalists in that sense. But by the time we get to William
James's world, rationalism (or intellectualism) refers to guys like Hegel,
Bradley and Royce. In James's time, rationalism was represented by these
Absolute Idealists and empiricism was represented by scientific positivism,
which was a very narrow brand of sensory empiricism with materialist
assumptions.
Now I think it's very important to understand that Pragmatism was invented as a
way to integrate these two rival schools of philosophy, these two styles of
thought, in the same way that Pirsig wants to integrate the classic and
romantic modes of understanding. This is what the expansion of rationality is
all about. These guys are saying that feeling and reason, sense and logic, are
not enemies and that our best understanding of things will always make use of
both together. Stanford puts it in terms of being the "mediator" between theses
extremes but I think "integrator" is a much better word.
"James classifies philosophers according to their temperaments: in this case
“tough-minded” or “tender-minded.” The pragmatist is the mediator between these
extremes, someone, like James himself, with “scientific loyalty to facts,” but
also “the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether
of the religious or romantic type” (P, 17)." (Stanford encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
About these two categories, James says:
"...I select them solely for their convenience in helping me to my ulterior
purpose of characterizing pragmatism. Historically we find the terms
’intellectualism’ and ’sensationalism’ used as synonyms of ’rationalism’ and
’empiricism.’ Well, nature seems to combine most frequently with
intellectualism an idealistic and optimistic tendency. Empiricists on the other
hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their optimism is apt to be
decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is always monistic. [dmb adds
- the Hegelian Absolute is monistic] It starts from wholes and universals, and
makes much of the unity of things. Empiricism starts from the parts, and makes
of the whole a collection-is not averse therefore to calling itself
pluralistic. Rationalism usually considers itself more religious than
empiricism, but there is much to say about this claim, so I merely mention it.
It is a true claim when the individual rationalist is what is called a man of
feeling, and when the individual empiricist prides himself on being
hard-headed. In that case the rationalist will usually also be in favor of what
is called free-will, and the empiricist will be a fatalist– I use the terms
most popularly current. The rationalist finally will be of dogmatic temper in
his affirmations, while the empiricist may be more sceptical and open to
discussion." (William James in "The Present Dilemma in Philosophy")
As you can see, the rivalry between the tender-minded and tough-minded helps to
explain the battle between religion and science. And we can see how the views
are never purely one or the other. Scientist speak about the physical universe
with religious awe and fundamentalist seek scientific support for their
creation myth. In real life these two schools are blended, confused and adopted
in all kinds of contradictory ways. But James and Pirsig are offering a more
deliberate integration of the two.
Then you get to radical empiricism. This is common to James, Dewey and Pirsig.
It is mainstream American philosophy. Here you get an integrated picture of the
relations between "intellectualism and sensationalism". It is a form of
empiricism, as the name so obviously indicates, so that all knowledge begins
with experience and is derived from experience. The concepts and ideas we have
are always secondary. But it parts company with the more narrow forms of
traditional empiricism. Unlike the positivists, the radical empiricists do not
exclude feeling and interests. For them, valid empirical data is not limited to
the five senses and "experience" not limited to disinterested observation.
Radical empiricism is a rejection of scientific objectivity AND religious
Absolutism.
It's funny. By trying to integrate the two rivals, James has bitter enemies on
both sides. Very religious types see pragmatism as the work of the devil and
the scientific types think James is way too religious. I've seen the same
reaction to Pirsig right here in this forum. The scientific types are scared
off by Pirsig's mysticism and the religious types freak out over his atheism.
As you may have guessed by now, I'm saying that the beauty of this integration
is lost such partisans.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
