Is this purely replicated thought or as humans, does "Empiricism" actually play the leading role?

Was thre more to this thread? There must be more than this question

Just the question.

I like to study your question, so  I  started to consult dictionaries and reference books to  translate the title of this post and your two questions.

I like to answer your questions, but they have to be unequivocal, so please help me ( and apparently nthomson as well) by explaining more, even why asking the question...

My answer "empiricism is important, but not playing the leading role" is meaningless for you without additional info.

I hope you review post nr 3 !     Thanks, bye, RomyGer 

You believe so? When I ellaborate, possibly a change in you may occur. Would be rather special, now wouldn't it?

Have you considered through gaining knowledge of chess, books etc etc. Do you believe you are actively gaining some form of new knowledge non existent to you prior? 

Or perhaps, just another pawn in the continual cycle of re-hashed information?

Thanks for post nr 5, you are right.   In philosophy people have different opinions and agree or not with other's ideas.    Let's be glad about that !   As I am a beta-man, (a retired mechanical engineering technologist,) I look for facts, research, results,  and that helps in abstract thinking .    So I don't like abstract remarks as purely replicated, play a leading role, rather special, another pawn, continual cycle, re-hashing...

I appreciate your texts, in other forums as well, so this is absolutely not personal, but I can not answer your post nr 5, you'll understand.

By the way, in 2009 I started writing an essay about intuition, insight, experience, learning, remembering, etc. ( empirism and rationalism as you call it) related to chess, but based on research and facts.   I started this because my eldest granddaughter studies psychology as well and I like to follow her thoughts...

The best philosophers have professional expertise as well, Lasker chess, Marx economy, Descartes maths !   I hope you will react , bye, RomyGer

I will react, u went to the trouble, then so shall I.

Bit of a tease though....I will only give you a taste of my thoughts to begin with.

You said, "based on research and facts"

Before I continue just on this one. Please give me your (Try to make it yours if possible) understanding of the word facts?

Thanks

Yes : I take up the glove, give me some time !

George1st wrote:

Is this purely replicated thought or as humans, does "Empiricism" actually play the leading role?

 Q

Could you please tell us what "THIS" is? You suggest in your question that it may just be purely replicated thought.

If there is any party to this discussion who can explain it to me I would be ever in his debt.  Is the question, "Do we just keep saying the same thing over and over again, or is what we say actually affected by events in the world?"  I live in hope.  N

To transpo and nthompson, please read back to yourselves what you have written and really think about it. You both may have come to 1 of the 2 conclusions open for debate.

Cheers.

George1st wrote:

To transpo and nthompson, please read back to yourselves what you have written and really think about it. You both may have come to 1 of the 2 conclusions open for debate.

Cheers.

The letters and words I am using in this sentence are part of a symbolic system of communication we label arbitrarily "English language" that at its base is nonsense. Even the most rigorous of these languages, mathematics, is at its base nonsense. In mathematics there are identities that are basic definitions. Definitions of identities we agree are beyond reason and that way madness lies. In other words, dialectical reasoning is initially based on nonsense. Even pointing at a tree on the part of an individual human and gesturing at another human to look, is a nonsensical symbolic system of communication.

Empiricism has also reached its limits because of Quantum Mechanics. Until we are able to develop a technology that will permit us to observe inside the wave we cannot apply the scientific method. At the present time all attempts to observe inside the wave results in the collapse of the wave.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

Nmgasirainish yokayish ngbaitishingngamgabusitsis. Ngupatsi imanoys.

Hwæt wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum

þēod-cyninga þrym gefrūnon

hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon

Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum

monegum mægþum meodo-setla oftēah

egsian eorl syððan ǣrest weorþan

What would this sentence mean if it were translated into English?

... and which three languages are used and what are the relations to the original subject ?   Who were the original writers, if any ?

I can't speak for the others, but I put mine in just because I thought that if we were going to talk non-sense, we might as well talk beautiful non-sense. 

n

Everyone, try not to analyze so much, just have a go at answering.

Cheers.

George1st wrote:

Everyone, try not to analyze so much, just have a go at answering.

Cheers.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Above is an example of using symbolic nonsense language to highlight the "paralysis of analysis" argument. In other words, because we are dealing with infinity our analytical tool(s) or methods are useless.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Dialectical reasoning is looking for the intellectual ultimate why. Empiricism is interested only in the how. The why it leaves to philosophers. Empiricists adopt a philosophy of "take the good and leave the rest".