Empeiria and Positus M urat B aç Boğaziçi University Philosophy Department

Etymological hints Empiricism “empeiria”:experience “empeiros”:skilled “empiric”:(1) a person relying solely on experiment, (2) a quack doctor “empirical”:(1) based or acting on observation or experiment, (2) deriving knowledge from experience alone “empiricism”: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense experience

Positivism “ponere”:to put, place “positus”:placed, laid down (hence, “certain”) positif (French, 13th Century): formally laid down, settled by agreement; opposed to “naturalis” especially in law to posit (Eng.): state or assume as a fact, to postulate August Comte’s ( ) positivism: Human culture passed through theological, metaphysical, and positive phases. The theological stage involved spiritual explanations of reality and is further divided into fetishism, polytheism, and monotheism. The metaphysical stage replaced the gods of the theological phase with philosophical abstractions, such as Being, Substance, etc. And finally, positive thought includes all (and only) the sciences. Positivism in philosophy: A view which holds that the only authentic knowledge is that based on actual sense experience. Such knowledge can come only from affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. Consequently, metaphysical speculation becomes the main philosophical target.

The colloquial (non-philosophical) senses of the two terms “Empirical”: Tough-minded, paying attention to experience and observation rather than abstract speculation or theorizing. “Positivist”: A strict attitude against superstitions and religious dogmas. Belief in the progress of humans in history by means of scientific enterprise. (“Science is the most genuine guide.” M. K. Atatürk –where the Arabic word ‘ershad’ means “to give advice or guidance”) The colloquial and philosophical senses of “metaphysics” Colloquially, “metaphysics” means either “the field of inquiry related to incorporeal and supernatural phenomena” or “any kind of highly theoretical endeavor”. As a branch of philosophy, “metaphysics” denotes the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles such as being, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Historical background: Anti-metaphysical attitude Ancient Greeks: The Plato-Aristotle tradition * Plato’s metaphysics: Forms as ideal objects, episteme vs. doxa * Aristotle: Was he really an “empiricist”? * Plato-Aristotle: Universals lying at the basis of being and knowledge Modern Times: R. Descartes, empiricists, the Golden age of epistemology * Descartes: The rationalist, father of “Modernity”, and the founder of the “epistemological paradigm” * The representationalist tradition and the idea of “idea” * Locke, Hume, and the empiricist reaction * The epistemological disaster: scepticism * I. Kant: The dialectical result of the epistemological controversy

The fortes of empiricism and rationalism David Hume’s empiricism and anti-metaphysical attitude * All knowledge can be traced back to simple impressions and ideas * Metaphysics is impossible. * The reason why we tend to go beyond observation (as done by the rationalist philosophers) is simply habit. Descartes’s “wax example”: Why perception isn’t enough * Consider one’s experience of a piece of wax as it goes through changes. * What mental faculty is responsible for our understanding of the object? * Conclusion: Perception cannot be the reason behing our grasp of the object. I. Kant: “Both empiricism and rationalism have a point” * Empiricism is right: We cannot go beyond experience and obtain metaphysical knowledge. * Rationalism is right: There is a sort of knowledge that cannot come from experience.

A case: The dualism and phenomenological turn of Kant Hume thought that there can be two sorts of knowledge: (1) knowledge of matters of fact, (2) knowledge of relations of ideas. There is no third kind. This seems to be a general tenet of empiricist philosophers. Kant’s philosophy represents an interesting turn because of the dualist nature of his thought. Kant is like an empiricist in denying any knowledge beyond the realm of experience. But he feels that he need to make room for a kind of knowledge that is like neither (1) nor (2). This is the point where Kant goes phenomenological and defends his “metaphysics” in connection with the structure (or construction) of the world. * “Phenomen-o-logy”: Logos of appearance In Kant’s version, our world is a knowable world. Yet, we need to tell a philosophical story about its possibility. (the “transcendental” task). Therefore, Kant presents a curious and sophisticated mixture of empiricist insight and rationalist intuitions.