Philosophy of empiricism and empiricism itself (such as in physics) are two different things, as the first is a metatheory of the second. I interpret the text as talking about the lack of empirical method in philosophy.
I think you could make an even stronger argument against my post by writing the following:
The OP makes two contradictory claims:
“Western philosophy has no place for empiricism.”
“[E]mpiricism once formed the foundation for the Age of Reason.”
The “Age of Reason”, also known as the “Age of Enlightenment”, included the British Empiricists who founded a tradition of Western philosophy so empirical it now dominates the world.
This seems a funny claim to make when there’s an entire movement in Western philosophy (the British Empiricists) dedicated to empiricism.
Philosophy of empiricism and empiricism itself (such as in physics) are two different things, as the first is a metatheory of the second. I interpret the text as talking about the lack of empirical method in philosophy.
I think you could make an even stronger argument against my post by writing the following: