Hyper-empiricism is Grandiosity Personality Disorder

[granpa]

In the hyper-empirical worldview human beings are just atoms and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms, it is therefore not thought wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate human beings. On the face of it this almost seems reasonable. But it fails to take into account the emergent phenomenon that make a human being so much more than just atoms. Atoms don't have thoughts, hopes, dreams, or aspirations yet people do. Clearly being "made of" something is not the same thing as "being" something (ie. belonging to a category).

But what does it mean to be something. In the hyper-empirical worldview it doesn't mean anything. In the hyper-empirical worldview categories are arbitrary and meaningless social constructions. But the phenomenon of convergent evolution (which is an emergent phenomenon) clearly shows that, if done properly, categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

Hyper-empiricism is the personality disorder known as grandiosity. Grandiosity - Wikipedia

Some examples of grandiosity include:

• Exaggerating achievements
• Criticizing others' achievements or talents
• Constantly boasting about oneself
• Believing oneself to be infallible or invulnerable
• Believing oneself to be more intelligent than others
• Thinking that rules don't apply to oneself
• Acting selfishly
• Treating others with disdain or contempt

Grandiosity is a key characteristic of psychopathy.

Hyper-empiricists struggle with the idea of emergence. Civilized laws (like "dont cut in line") are also an emergent phenomenon so they struggle to understand where such laws come from. In their minds all laws come from a lawgiver therefore there must be some sort of cosmic lawgiver that creates these laws. They call this lawgiver "god" and they call his laws "moral laws". They then reject the existence of both.

Grandiosity is the opposite of littlosity. (Peter Pan syndrome).

 

[Quintessence]

I am not familiar with "hyper-empirical" as a term. Do you have any additional references for this we can consult?

To add, "empiricism" in philosophy is the view that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, as opposed to reason or logic. Given that I'm not following how "hyper-empiricism" - presumably a ridiculous extreme of empiricism - would take the perspective you are describing in the opening post. Did you mean physicalism?

 

[GoodAttention]

I am not familiar with "hyper-empirical" as a term. Do you have any additional references for this we can consult?

To add, "empiricism" in philosophy is the view that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, as opposed to reason or logic. Given that I'm not following how "hyper-empiricism" - presumably a ridiculous extreme of empiricism - would take the perspective you are describing in the opening post. Did you mean physicalism?

The irony in you having to ask the clarifying question is profound.

Why would OP mean physicalism instead of empirical?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Hyper-empiricists struggle with the idea of emergence. Civilized laws (like "dont cut in line") are also an emergent phenomenon so they struggle to understand where such laws come from. In their minds all laws come from a lawgiver therefore there must be some sort of cosmic lawgiver that creates these laws. They call this lawgiver "god".

I don't entirely follow this last bit.. Why would the 'hyper-empiricist' allow for the existence of god?

 

[LuisDantas]

The OP is very mistaken if it expects anyone to identify with the very specific and very biased description that is built.

Not sure it is even something that might be found in the reality of facts.

I will, however, point out that the item in red suggests that the OP writer is a believer in the validity of theocentric deontology. Not a path that I would advise, but one that exists. You should however be aware that it is not universally accepted and IMO is definitely the lesser among the competing explanations for the nature and role of morality.

 

[Quintessence]

Why would OP mean physicalism instead of empirical?

Because what the opening post is calling "empiricism" is significantly more consistent with physicalism. Specifically, reductionistic physicalism. The OP is talking about an ontological claim - that reality reduces down to the physical substance called atoms. Empiricism is epistemological, not ontological - that humans gather information about reality primarily through their senses. Empiricism doesn't say "human beings are just atoms." Frankly, neither does physicalism, but such a statement is consistent with physicalism whereas it is not consistent with empiricism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the hyper-empirical worldview human beings are just atoms and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms, it is therefore not thought wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate human beings. On the face of it this almost seems reasonable. But it fails to take into account the emergent phenomenon that make a human being so much more than just atoms. Atoms don't have thoughts, hopes, dreams, or aspirations yet people do. Clearly being "made of" something is not the same thing as "being" something (ie. belonging to a category).

But what does it mean to be something. In the hyper-empirical worldview it doesn't mean anything. In the hyper-empirical worldview categories are arbitrary and meaningless social constructions. But the phenomenon of convergent evolution (which is an emergent phenomenon) clearly shows that, if done properly, categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

Hyper-empiricism is the personality disorder known as grandiosity. Grandiosity - Wikipedia

Some examples of grandiosity include:

• Exaggerating achievements
• Criticizing others' achievements or talents
• Constantly boasting about oneself
• Believing oneself to be infallible or invulnerable
• Believing oneself to be more intelligent than others
• Thinking that rules don't apply to oneself
• Acting selfishly
• Treating others with disdain or contempt

Grandiosity is the opposite of littlosity. (Peter Pan syndrome).

Hyper-empiricists struggle with the idea of emergence. Civilized laws (like "dont cut in line") are also an emergent phenomenon so they struggle to understand where such laws come from. In their minds all laws come from a lawgiver therefore there must be some sort of cosmic lawgiver that creates these laws. They call this lawgiver "god" and they call his laws "moral laws". They then reject the existence of both.

Unethical, playing doctor with your fake, bull**** "diagnosis" and immorally misrepresenting others.
What is this hyper empirical worldview? Who follows it? Even the likes of Richard Dawkins don't dismiss our existence as being nothing more than atoms.

 

[GoodAttention]

Because what the opening post is calling "empiricism" is significantly more consistent with physicalism. Specifically, reductionistic physicalism. The OP is talking about an ontological claim - that reality reduces down to the physical substance called atoms. Empiricism is epistemological, not ontological - that humans gather information about reality primarily through their senses. Empiricism doesn't say "human beings are just atoms." Frankly, neither does physicalism, but such a statement is consistent with physicalism whereas it is not consistent with empiricism.

I think we are arguing semantics but in any case, OP says this *worldview* is "hyper-empirical", being that humans (or certain of our most vocal of representatives) reduce the human experience as mere vibrations of particles.

This isn't a question or argument regarding reality "reduces down" as you say, and therefore isn't an ontological claim.

I don't think OP believes a hypothetical "hyper-empiric" walks around society seeing the rest of us as atomic particles, but only they can answer that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In the hyper-empirical worldview human beings are just atoms and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms, it is therefore not thought wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate human beings.

You have set up a straw man to knock down. Tsk tsk.

Try spending less time psychically being able to read the minds of empiricists, and more time listening to what they say about themselves. And when they tell you that it is important to live ethically, accept that this is their truth.