Do you equate non-rational with idiocy? I don't, so when I observed that rationalism puts the cart before the horse in an ironically non-rational way, that is not me saying rationalism (or rationalists) are idiotic (was there a miscommunciation there?).
Haha, no man. I was not responding to you so much as hard-nosed empiricists, especially proponents of scientism. There is a kind of thinker who, upon seeing how impressive the physical sciences are, tends to view Rationalist thinkers as some kind of "idiots" who have nothing valuable to say since we've discovered the physical sciences. So there was a little bit of "ire" in my comment. But it was NOT directed at you. I think you asked some excellent questions.
There's something else to unpack here too. Do you equate sensory experience with empirical data? I don't, and I'm not sure rationalists would either. Could you expand on how a rationalist would recognize (or interpret) the value of sensory experience that is not empirical data? Is raw, non-rationalized sensory experience valued? Considered inherently problematic and faulty unless put through a rationalistic screening process (as occurs with empiricism)? What can we unpack here?
I think sensory experience is the SOURCE of all empirical data. But I do not equate the two.
I can give you a quick example or two of things that a Rationalist contends might be known, yet does not boil down to empirical data: moral knowledge and aesthetics. Some rationalists like to include a priori knowledge (like math) in its own distinct category.
I'm not a die-hard rationalist or anything. Two of my favorite philosophers (Plato and Spinoza) were rationalists, and they made their cases to me. I'm not sold one way or the other, but I very much like the overall vision of both philosophers.
We can unpack more if you'd like. Most of my reply here was just clarification/making sure we're on the same page.
Plato is VERY wrong on a number of things. On the whole (even though Aristotle was wrong a lot too), I think Aristotle got more correct than Plato. But still I think Plato is head and shoulders above Aristotle as a philosopher.
Wrong ideas aren't necessarily bad. They are just incorrect. Plato asked the right questions. His "wrong" answers were used in debate, like tools... tools that eventually helped us get the right answer.
Though I'd agree, I'd emphasize it as a scientific formula, not an abstract idea like the Forms.
As I said before. Instead of calling it "the world of the forms" I like to call it the "world of ideas." Both words are deemed correct translations from the original Greek. And when Plato posits a "world of ideas" where things like right triangles and perfect geometric shapes exist, it sounds less like he is talking about some heavenly plane of existence and more like he is dividing reality into two distinct components.
E=MC^2 (if Plato ever encountered and understood the idea) would certainly say it belongs in the world of ideas. You can't look under a rock and find E=MC^2. So, I hate to say it, but I think you agree with Plato on that one. (Unless I misunderstand you.)
