Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 14, 2025
Enquiring for her at tea time Soames learned that Fleur had been out in the car since two. Three hours! Where had she gone? Up to London without a word to him? He had never become quite reconciled with cars. He had embraced them in principle like the born empiricist, or Forsyte, that he was adopting each symptom of progress as it came along with: "Well, we couldn't do without them now."
He cannot rise to so lofty occasion, but he is a thorough-going empiricist, and he knows, sooner or later, if not gobbled up by the guny, that the flying-fish must return to the water. And then breakfast. We used to pity the poor winged fish. It was sad to see such sordid and bloody slaughter.
Enquiring for her at tea time Soames learned that Fleur had been out in the car since two. Three hours! Where had she gone? Up to London without a word to him? He had never become quite reconciled with cars. He had embraced them in principle like the born empiricist, or Forsyte, that he was adopting each symptom of progress as it came along with: "Well, we couldn't do without them now."
There was a far-reaching web of complicated relationships official, political, matrimonial, commercial and otherwise which had a very practical effect upon the performance of theoretical duty. Delany was neither an idealist nor a philosopher. He was an empiricist, with a touch of pragmatism though he did not know it. He was "a practical man."
Such is the reaction of an empiricist mind upon the rationalist bill of fare. It is an absolute 'No, I thank you. "Religion," says Mr. Swift, "is like a sleep-walker to whom actual things are blank."
If it is an assumption for the empiricist to declare that what has been true in the past will be true in the future, that earlier experiences of the world will not be contradicted by later; what is it for the Kantian to maintain that the order which he finds in his experience will necessarily and always be the order of all future experiences?
The tough-minded are the men whose alpha and omega are FACTS. Behind the bare phenomenal facts, as my tough-minded old friend Chauncey Wright, the great Harvard empiricist of my youth, used to say, there is NOTHING. When a rationalist insists that behind the facts there is the GROUND of the facts, the POSSIBILITY of the facts, the tougher empiricists accuse him of taking the mere name and nature of a fact and clapping it behind the fact as a duplicate entity to make it possible.
He cannot do it as the empiricist does it, by a reference to experienced fact, for he does not believe that the external world is directly given in our experience. He thinks we are directly conscious only of our ideas of it, and must somehow prove that it exists over against our ideas.
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. I think we must frankly confess that a man may try hard to be an empiricist and may not be wholly successful.
They proceeded on a basis of assumptions the validity of which was at once called in question. Locke, the empiricist, repudiated all this, and then also made assumptions which others could not, and cannot, approve. Kant did something of much the same sort; we cannot regard his "criticism" as wholly critical. How can we avoid such errors?
Word Of The Day
Others Looking