The reference is to the method, not the word. There is an historical continuity between the Medieval empiricists like Roger Bacon, and Galen’s followers (he died about 299 AD (who go back to Arabic predecessors, perhaps influenced by Galen – medical usage, of course, but he seemed to extend it in his views of the natural world) and the later ones who came to called The British Empiricists, though not by that name at that time. On source puts the general use of the modern accepted sense at 1796, well after the British Empiricists.
Typical definition: empiricist ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪst/ PHILOSOPHY noun 1. a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. "most scientists are empiricists by nature" adjective 1. relating to or characteristic of the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. "his radically empiricist view of science as a direct engagement with the world" The term in its present form originated in 1660-70; some say about 1700. If you think that words determine thoughts, than there was no empiricism except in medicine before these dates. Aristotle had some things I common with empiricists, but his requirement for a rationalist/ essentialist middle term undermined that because it required the active nour. The Medieval ones gave that up. But so did many of the stoics, who were therefore empiricists. The term goes back to the Greeks, not that I think that some magic connects terms to ideas: Etymology The English term empirical derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, empeiria, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which are derived the word experience and the related experiment. The term was used by the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the three doctrines of the Dogmatic school, preferring to rely on the observation of "phenomena".[5] NB the restriction to medicine here, similar to the early restriction of semiotics to medicine. Peirce relevance: Peirce is usually included among those who tried to combine elements of empiricism and rationalism, though for my money he doesn’t fit either camp very well In any case, the recent attempts on this list to try to tie empiricism to the use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship. John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier > -----Original Message----- > From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] > Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 5:58 PM > To: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > Cc: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>; John Collier > <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - > > I share your surprise, Jerry. > > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 5.2.2017 19:26: > > John, Edwina, List: > > > > I am more than a bit surprised by the assertions that the Middle > > Ages gave birth to "Empirism". > > > > Does anyone have a convenient reference to the historical emergence > > of this term in philosophy? > > > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Feb 5, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > > wrote: > > > >> John: > >> > >> Agreed, empiricism started in the 'middle ages' - and my point is > >> that no 'thought-ideology' exists in a vacuum. Empiricism became an > >> observable if peripheral force in the 13th century, as did the > >> shift towards empowering individuals. > >> > >> I consider that philosophical ideologies do not exist in a vacuum > >> but co-exist with political ideologies. My point is which ones are > >> dominant? > >> > >> No- I am not confusing societal 'logic' [??]....with scientific > >> logic. [I hate the term _sociological_ for the abuses of thought > >> found within so many sociology treatises]... Philosophic ideology > >> is not the same as scientific logic. I am suggesting that a > >> philosophical ideology is correlated with a societal ideology - and > >> that empiricism, which began at least to emerge in open discourse > >> in the 13th c, is correlated with the political ideology that > >> affirmed support for individual interaction with the world. > >> > >> I certainly agree: Peirce wasn't political at all. My point is only > >> that HIS analysis, with its three categories, works very well to > >> disempower the extremes of both empiricism and idealism. > >> > >> Edwina > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> FROM: John Collier > >> TO: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L > >> SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM > >> SUBJECT: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - > >> > >> I don’t agree. Edwina. Empiricism started in the Middle ages and > >> went through periods of profound social transformation since while > >> being changed relatively little. > >> > >> I don’t think it is a political ideology. > >> > >> I think that confusing sociological and scientific logic with each > >> together leads to confusion, with which your post is rife. Much of > >> what you say about empiricism just strikes me as irrelevant, with > >> multitude counterexamples I won’t go into here except to note that > >> empiricism co-existed with m any political ideologies. > >> > >> I don’t think that Peirce was particularly political in his logic > >> or methodology, though I understand his politics tended to towards > >> the conservative. He didn’t write much about real political issues > >> of his time, and I doubt it was a major influence in his overall though. > >> > >> John Collier > >> > >> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > >> > >> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > >> > >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] > >> > >> FROM: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > >> SENT: Sunday, 05 February 2017 5:58 PM > >> TO: John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Peirce-L > >> <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> > >> SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - > >> > >> I think that even a philosophical ideology , eg, the 'classic form > >> of empiricism', has to be grounded in the societal infrastructure. > >> > >> Political ideologies certainly must be grounded; I think it's an > >> error to say, for example, the 'democracy is the best political > >> system', for any political system must give political power to that > >> section of the population that produces wealth and so enables > >> continuity of that society. If the majority of the population are > >> producing wealth, then, democracy is the most functional political > >> system. If only a minority are producing wealth [and this was the > >> case for most of mankind's economic history], then, democracy would > >> be dysfunctional. > >> > >> What about philosophical ideologies? Are they isolated from > >> grounding in the societal infrastructure? I've outlined my view of > >> the enormous societal impact of the rise of empiricism, which > >> empowered ordinary individuals to interact, as they saw fit, with > >> the world. The slippery slope downside is that it easily moves into > >> the randomness of postmodern relativism and chaos. > >> > >> What about realism? How does it societally function? It removes the > >> individual from sole access to 'truth' and inserts a 'community of > >> scholars'. This removes randomness from the analysis. It posits a > >> truth system based around general rules, where individual > >> articulations of these rules are just that: individual and > >> transient versions but almost minor in their real-life power except > >> as versions of those rules. This has its own slippery slope of > >> fundamental determinism and we've seen the results in many eras in > >> our world history, including modern times. > >> > >> Peirce dealt with this with his focus on the freedom of Firstness > >> and his view that the rules [Thirdness] evolve and adapt. This > >> would enable a society to have a rule of law, with local variations > >> - something required in a 'growth society' - i.e., a modern society > >> as differentiated from a no-growth or pre-industrial society. > >> > >> Edwina > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> FROM: John Collier > >> > >> TO: Jerry LR Chandler > >> > >> CC: Peirce List ; Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien > >> > >> SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:18 AM > >> > >> SUBJECT: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of > >> units unifies the unity” > >> > >> Jerry, I think we are using ‘empiricism’ differently. I was using > >> it in the classic form, not just to refer to anyone who uses the > >> natural world as a touchstone for clarifying meaning and > >> discovering the truth. I am an empiricist in this latter sense, but not > >> the former. > >> > >> ------------------------- > >> > >> ----------------------------- > >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY > >> ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > >> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe > >> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] . > > > >> ----------------------------- > >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY > >> ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > >> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe > >> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] . > > > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > [2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
