User talk:Subjectivist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was not aware of the practice of using the talk page first. I just got involved with Wikipedia. But anyway, rationalism and empiricism are historically opposed to each other. Descartes has a dual nature, sometimes considered a rationalist and sometimes an empiricist, but his contribution to science was empiricism. The Cogito ergo sum article said the saying was a contribution to "Western rationalism" which was simply wrong. People often do not understand the historical meanings of various terms. McDivitt Sep 29 06

Don't sweat the stuff you didn't know, you'll adapt pretty quickly. I got involved with wikipedia almost six months ago and I still miss things others consider obvious and necessary... But anyways - while the saying is certainly a contribution to western philosophy, I'm skeptical that Descartes contributed equal amounts to the rationalist and empiricist traditions. In the Meditations, his work is clearly rationalist as he is trying to elimate all undependable sources of knowledge and is left with only the rational principle of the cogito. - Sam 14:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your persuasion is, rationalistic or empirical. Myself, I am against rationalism and every variant of it, in its historical context, seeing it as representation of god and godly authority, and opportunistic name-dropping by people who wield control. One would think as religion fades away we would see less realism and rationalism. We do. These words are seldom ever used anymore in their historical context, but have morphed into one of several other words that sit on the shelf, which people pull off the shelf at random any time they want to emphasize "what is right". I just cannot agree Descartes contributed to "Western rationalism". I do not agree with the rest of the article, either, as if Descartes is trying to reestablish rationalism, or fixed, static concepts, in himself. What he's done is strip away all a priori concepts (rationalism), to come upon the only concept he cannot refute, which is the fact he is thinking. He sees or realizes that he is thinking, which is empiricism. It is empirical because he sees this, not because he thinks it was already there, which would be a rational assessment, and especially not because he sees himself thinking correctly. It is not the one and only rational (a priori) he is unable to deconstruct, but I can see why a person biased toward realism, rationalism, and objective reality would think that. Descartes was a man torn between his religious beliefs (rationalism: what is, what god created), and his knowledge of cause and effect, which means things blossom as they unfold. You might also want to subscribe to my Yahoo group "subjectivist". I've been trying to get more people interested. McDivitt Sep 30 06

[edit] The cogito

please explain where in the article, Cogito ergo sum, empiricism is implied. It is recommended that before you make changes to an article that may be significant, you float the idea on the talk page in order to get consensus first. Thanks. - Sam 04:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)