We can say that rationalism triggers the free will and thinking ability of people, which will be discussed a little, but the main source of rationalism here is the reason for the free will of the person from the principle of cause and effect, where the principle of causality comes to the fore and thinkers are divided into four in this area.
Maybe it's just me but i thought the empiric method is a method based in science. By conducting all sorts of test you get factual results if all goes well. It must be possible to reproduce the same test results under the same conditions. No scientist here just assuming things i guess; When talking about objectivity/ subjectivity that is when we 'observe'. I feel like you're mixing things up.
At the the first experience, you wouldn't know it to be a misperception and you'll strongly believe it to be knowledge until at a certain point that you get to know the that you were deceived earlier. An example is the experience of a mirage, at your first experience you say it's a pool of water and takes it as a knowledge you've acquired until you get close to it that's when you know you were deceived by the senses.
We can say that rationalism triggers the free will and thinking ability of people, which will be discussed a little, but the main source of rationalism here is the reason for the free will of the person from the principle of cause and effect, where the principle of causality comes to the fore and thinkers are divided into four in this area.
In the Kingdom of the Blind, The One Eyed Man is King...
No
Maybe it's just me but i thought the empiric method is a method based in science. By conducting all sorts of test you get factual results if all goes well. It must be possible to reproduce the same test results under the same conditions. No scientist here just assuming things i guess;
When talking about objectivity/ subjectivity that is when we 'observe'. I feel like you're mixing things up.
Things that go bump in the night
I would say that your first argument against empiricism is unfounded since it could be easily said that misperceptions do not constitute knowledge.
At the the first experience, you wouldn't know it to be a misperception and you'll strongly believe it to be knowledge until at a certain point that you get to know the that you were deceived earlier. An example is the experience of a mirage, at your first experience you say it's a pool of water and takes it as a knowledge you've acquired until you get close to it that's when you know you were deceived by the senses.
Daddy vibes
plz god no