[B-Chan]

Ad here is a question to make any empiricist uncomfortable: "How do you know that the phenomena you perceive with your senses have any relation to reality as it actually exists?" You don't, of course. You take it on faith that there exists an objective reality outside of yourself that corresponds in some meaningful way with your sensory impressions. But, as Descartes pointed out, that faith is very much subject to doubt. Being a materialist is to eventually come to the conclusion that the only thing that cannot be doubted is one's own existence: cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am". But, since one's own thoughts are directly experienced, not perceived via sensory impresions (one does not literally "hear oneself think"), then the rationalist is left with the uncomfortable realization that the only thing in the universe one can know exists cannot be demonstrated to exist -- and, thus, that the entire structure of empiricism is based upon a non-empirical foundation.

[Yardstick]

I like the way you put that, B-Chan.

How about this: are the blind abandoning their intellect when they accept on faith that the sighted can see?

[Sam Cree]

"then the rationalist is left with the uncomfortable realization that the only thing in the universe one can know exists cannot be demonstrated to exist -- and, thus, that the entire structure of empiricism is based upon a non-empirical foundation."

You just reminded me why I got tired of philosophy.