It is the function of this lecture to show how and why it is now possible to make claims for experience as a guide in science and moral life which the older empiricists did not and could not make for it.
The empiricists themselves admitted the correctness of these assertions.
For theempiricists of Aesthetic, intellectualism and moralism represent progress; for the intellectualists, hedonistic and moralistic alike, agnosticism is progress and may be called Kant.
But please observe, now, that when as empiricists we give up the doctrine of objective certitude, we do not thereby give up the quest or hope of truth itself.
One may hold to the first being possible without the second; hence the empiricists and the absolutists, although neither of them is a sceptic in the usual philosophic sense of the term, show very different degrees of dogmatism in their lives.
The greatest empiricists among us are only empiricists on reflection: when {14} left to their instincts, they dogmatize like infallible popes.
The absolutists in this matter say that we not only can attain to knowing truth, but we can know when we have attained to knowing it; while the empiricists think that although we may attain it, we cannot infallibly know when.
Why, then, did you not call yourselves Empiricists from the beginning?
The Erasistrateans practically Empiricistsin this respect.
It keeps all the essential principles of the apriorists; but at the same time it is inspired by that positive spirit which the empiricists have striven to satisfy.
The categories are no longer considered as primary and unanalysable facts, yet they keep a complexity which falsifies any analysis as ready as that with which the empiricists content themselves.
Although Locke was a realist, Berkeley an idealist, Hume a skeptic, and Mill what has been called a sensationalist; yet all wereempiricists of a sort, and emphasized the necessity of founding our knowledge upon experience.
It has often been claimed by those who do not sympathize with empiricism that the empiricists make assumptions much as others do, but have not the grace to admit it.
But all such differences are minor matters which ought to be subordinated in view of the fact that, whether we be empiricists or rationalists, we are, ourselves, parts of the universe and share the same one deep concern in its destinies.
Advance in thinking, in the hegelian universe, has, in short, to proceed by the apodictic words must be rather than by those inferior hypothetic words may be, which are all that empiricists can use.
The empiricists use their logic against the absolute, but refuse to use it against finite experience.
If we are empiricists and go from parts to wholes, we believe that beings may first exist and feed so to speak on their own existence, and then secondarily become known to one another.
Rationalists and empiricists alike have been deceived in regard to the necessity for co-operation between the senses and the understanding.
Judgment Descartes on rationalists and empiricists both mistake nature of Kant on synthetic judgments a priori the categories and, in Kant judgments of perception and of experience in Kant Kant on aesthetic and teleological Jungius Kaatz, H.
This was carried on by two distinct classes of writers, namely, the empiricists and the cameralists.
In another case, on the contrary, he contrasts the Sceptics sharply with the Empiricists in regard to the [Greek: apodeixeis].
Empiricists on the other hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their optimism is apt to be decidedly conditional and tremulous.
Empiricists as a rule, are as stout monists of this abstract kind as rationalists are.
The difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled.
Rationalists are the men of principles, empiricists the men of facts.
We have, however, no more right as good empiricists to assert than to deny that all difference comes from 'circumstance.
This limitation, to which the analysis of empirical concepts is subject, was admitted by both empiricists and rationalists.
Owing to its influence, the above fallacy has been committed by dogmatists and empiricists alike.
The empiricists of narration extract themselves from embarrassment in a very simple fashion, putting together at hazard men and things, objective necessities of fact and subjective influences.
But that is an expression of empiricists or ideologists who repeat Herder.
In "The Psychological Standpoint" Dewey ascribes the failure of the earlier empiricists to their desertion of the direct descriptive method (a criticism repeated frequently in later essays).
Dewey attempts to show, in a discussion which need not be followed in detail, that there is nothing radical in his view, and that it finds support among the idealists and empiricists alike.
The historical method is subject to two misunderstandings, Dewey says, one by the empiricists and materialists, the other by the idealists.
The above list will hopefully give you a few useful examples demonstrating the appropriate usage of "empiricists" in a variety of sentences. We hope that you will now be able to make sentences using this word.
