Empiricist philosophers accept a 'commonsense' view of fact and yet conclude that physical reality may not exist at all. This book outlines the arguments of Locke, Berkeley, Hume, J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer as well as critics of this tradition, Kant, Wittgenstein, Popper and others.
کتاب فوق العاده ای بود، از این لحاظ که ساعت ها من مشغول فکر کردن به موضوعات مطرح شده داخل کتاب بودم. ولی بعضی اشتباهات چاپی و املایی کمی توی ذوق میزد متاسفانه.
Although this book is « introductory », it is not to be read lightly. The graphic illustrations can help, but the concepts and ideas discussed within are fairly represented, and can be hard to understand if this is your first dive into philosophy, or empiricism.
There’s no escaping the complexity of the epistemology of empiricism if you want it to be properly explained, and I consider this book to have succeeded in that regard. So, even if this graphic guide is introductory, be prepared to set aside some time to absorb certain concepts, and you’ll be far better off for it.
This book explains empiricism with clarity enhanced by historical context. It shows how each philosopher featured in this book builds their own concepts on the shoulders of thinkers before them. It also shows how empiricism wasn't just navel gazing but largely a way for science to gather evidence more precisely. This book helped connect dots for me that I couldn't when I was in graduate school.
If the purpose of art is to stop time, to subvert the process of thinking in time, and to prepare the way for the appearance of the Messiah, the second coming of Christ is an instance of highly-entropic relativity legitimized by an observer situated in nature united in the One Infinite Mind of God which is consciousness ! This book took me to a higher plane of consciousness as it directly mentions David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, a book written in 1740 and the exact book I am scheduled to read next. It appears that books like this were made to deaden once and for all any possibilities of metaphysical reasoning for British and American teenagers and to ready the way for quantifiable non-observer-oriented physical science, so let's read this book, board the ramparts and prepare to storm the bastille of anti-philosophical thinking !
However, induction is not quantifiable and is irreducible to a set of logical properties or, should we say, following J.S. Mill, that all deductive knowledge, including that of mathematics and logic, is really inductive and that, in light of the fact that Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead's Principia Mathematica did not succeed in demonstrative that mathematics was reducible to logic (or maybe Frege proved it true, a deficit in my knowledge), that such a type of thinking inevitably leads to the denunciation of philosophy as a realm where hidden truths can be obtained; this debunks not only the pleasure of reading and thinking but relegates the status of the philosopher as a person who engages in logical analysis "to no purpose" -- and why not, if all the books have been written ?
This book leaves me firmly convinced that, in regard to any other purpose to which language may be put, it remains "the wet-dream" of a schizophrenic to construct a purely private set of experiences or a language unique to one individual - sorry Jeremy !
It was a mind boggling yet fascinating book. It was a good pick for me as a Data Scientist, with some interest in philosophy concepts related to my field and interests. While discussing empiricism and counter ideas, it covered a lot of those areas including perception, senses, knowledge, truth, logic, uncertainty, meaning, language, vision, experiences, mathematics and inference etc. It made me realize how abstract, even the simplest things could get. There were many weird concepts but also valuable ideas to remember and ponder on. I liked the graphical and comical style. It was my first book from the introducing series, and I liked the format and would like to get some others.
Its more of an introduction to the history of empiricism than empiricism itself. Still its a nice fun little book which will help show the complexity of epistemology and the folly of trying to rely on empiricism as the be all and end all of knowledge despite it appearing as a quick and easy solution. Also oddly enough despite not having a section dedicated to him Kant came off as the real hero of the book.
A good overview of a field that is mostly frustrating until you get to Hume, Ayer and Russel. Still, a good summary even though I'd prefer more epistemological concepts tied in.
تجربهگرایی یکی از گرایشهای اصلی در شناختشناسی و نقطهٔ مقابل عقلگرایی است. بر اساس این دیدگاه همهٔ معرفتهای بشری مستقیم یا غیرمستقیم برآمده از تجربه است. تجربه از منظر این دیدگاه نه فقط ادراک حسی بلکه دریافتهایی مانند حافظه یا گواهی دیگران را هم در بر میگیرد.
برمبنای نظریهٔ مبناگرایی همهٔ باورهای ما با واسطهٔ استدلال نهایتاً از منبعی به دست آمدهاند که آن منبع نیاز به توجیه یا استدلال ندارد. تجربهگرایی - که یکی از زیرمجموعههای مبناگرایی است - تنها تجربه را به عنوان چنین منبعی بینیاز از توجیه میدانند. تقلیل گرایی یکی از ویژگیهای عمده برنامه تجربه گرایی است که توسط جان لاک مطرح شد و بارکلی و هیوم آن را تدقیق کردند و اثبات گرایان آن را آخرین میخی میدانستند که بر تابوت بحث های دینی و اخلاقی و متافیزیکی کوفته شده بود تجربهگرایی با استفاده از حسیات در مقابل عقلگرایی میباشد. تجربیات عقلی از علم حصولی است و روش اثبات غیر حسی دارد. طبق نظر دکارت اگر همهٔ حواس چندگانهٔ ما از کار بیافتند ولی مغز هنوز بتواند فکر کند حتماً ما وجود داریم پس تجربهٔ این دیدگاه بعد از رنسانس به صورت جدی طرح شد. بارکلی، جان لاک و دیوید هیوم از فیلسوفان تجربهگرا هستند.
If you want to retain your sanity, do not read this book. But if you already lost it, this book will improve your insanely driven mind. This book explores reality from philosopher's skepticism about it through the centuries.