[MD] Quantum Enigma

[david buchanan]

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.