Thank you for these great lectures. Rationalism or independence of experience in this context could mean that 1.a creature born without any senses could still have some inbuilt concepts and knowledge about the world or it could mean that 2. the senses are still required to activate these innate contents In my opinion the first interpretation is too much to swallow, and the second less radical theses leaves open why would you need any sensory input for this activation. It seems to me more reasonable to suppose that what is inborn is not content as such, but rather the ability to process sensory input in certain ways. But that is I think compatible with empiricism.What do you think about these different ways to approach rationalism?
I feel like our DNA sets the blueprint to be able to experience the world in the best way possible, that is to say, the best adapted way to achieve survivability. Those innate, so-to-speak, qualities are what we start out with, which could be interpreted as a priori. However, each human experience is only the result from the unraveling of space/time giving sensation that is interpreted by each cognitive process (brain). So indeed we are born with the foundation to receive sensations and perception, but only the actual exposure allows us to carry out the actions. Furthermore, the idea of concepts are developed a few years after birth, so concepts and judgments are hugely influenced by one's community and culture. However, one study showed that children have innate qualities to taking a liking to geometric inanimate objects progressing, and disliking the objects that prohibit the success of those objects trying to succeed. The debate there would be if it was innate or learned from the caregiving of the parents. fin.
You are a great teacher! Thank you for all these videos. You have explained it beautifully!
Thank you for these great lectures.
Rationalism or independence of experience in this context could mean that
1.a creature born without any senses could still have some inbuilt concepts and knowledge about the world
or it could mean that
2. the senses are still required to activate these innate contents
In my opinion the first interpretation is too much to swallow, and the second less radical theses leaves open why would you need any sensory input for this activation. It seems to me more reasonable to suppose that what is inborn is not content as such, but rather the ability to process sensory input in certain ways. But that is I think compatible with empiricism.What do you think about these different ways to approach rationalism?
I feel like our DNA sets the blueprint to be able to experience the world in the best way possible, that is to say, the best adapted way to achieve survivability. Those innate, so-to-speak, qualities are what we start out with, which could be interpreted as a priori. However, each human experience is only the result from the unraveling of space/time giving sensation that is interpreted by each cognitive process (brain). So indeed we are born with the foundation to receive sensations and perception, but only the actual exposure allows us to carry out the actions. Furthermore, the idea of concepts are developed a few years after birth, so concepts and judgments are hugely influenced by one's community and culture. However, one study showed that children have innate qualities to taking a liking to geometric inanimate objects progressing, and disliking the objects that prohibit the success of those objects trying to succeed. The debate there would be if it was innate or learned from the caregiving of the parents. fin.
Do you have some examples of concepts or judgements which are tricky for the empiricist to explain?
Coming soon, in Thursday's video!