It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you’re being a little pedantic here.