Content deleted Content added
m →Summary, etc.: fmt, and add a point |
|||
Line 29:
:Why would Descartes be a "poster child" for ''solipsism''? Kenosis' account of the relationship between the so-called rationalists and empiricists is conventional and somewhat simplistic. Leaving aside the fact that, in many ways, Locke ''et al.'' were closer to Descartes in many ways than were Leibniz and Spinoza, the relationships between the six big names were much more complex (as were those between Plato and Aristotle). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
::It was intended to be simplistic for these purposes. And quite true that there are many overlaps here. The issues I intended to bring forth here are:
::(1) Descartes, in the context of his day, falls on the same side of the ''basic'' debate as Plato did in his.
::(2) Descartes, along with Spinoza and Leibniz, was presuming (to borrow on Kantian terms a bit) an "underlying" "noumenal" realm that could be accessed by reason alone, failing to acknowledge the full extent to which he was in fact building on a empirically derived framework (providing, according to Descartes, that one exercised adequate rational doubt).
::(3) A ''brief'' reference to an analogous polarity between Plato and Aristotle seems to deserve brief mention, because, other distinctions aside, Plato is presuming that ''a priori'' knowledge is accessible with reason. So was Descartes, at which point the empiricists chose to weigh in.
::(4) While I was not advocating such a discussion in the article, Descartes was in fact off on his own spin (hence solipsist). That is an unsustainable mode when it dominates a discussion in any given day has a certain tendency to lead to wilder and wilder speculations and "outrun" the ability of one's contemporaries to do "fact checks" or "reality checks."...[[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
==Expansion==
| |||