In the discovery of knowledge, rationalism tends to provide one of the best explanations with regard to the manner through which individuals are able to acquire perfect ideas. Rationalism operates based on two primary components that are central to its position namely deductive reasoning and innate ideas. The concepts that individuals always harbor right from birth represent innate ideas, which form the basis of all other ideas possessed by people. Innate ideas are inborn and individuals possessing only come to know about them in their later years in life. Such ideas also represent a special class where they can be known through absolute certainty and it is difficult for them to be acquired via experience. In this respect, examples of innate ideas are those surrounding God, substance, casualty, and infinity. The deductive reasoning component of the rationalism way of discovering knowledge describes other ideas deduced from the innate ideas (Bogataj, 2005).
In this regard, the certainty that individuals have in relation to innate ideas gives rise to other ideas. However, mistakes may be experienced in instances where the deductions made are so long to the extent that they reside on memory. Essentially, rationalism provides that every other knowledge arise from innate ideas coupled with deductive demonstration. Rationalism represents the philosophy that attempts to explain the connection between knowledge and logic as well as a certain level of intuition. As such, individuals can be in a position to know the truthfulness of something with necessarily going through a deduction process and such a state can be described as consciousness. According to the rationalist way of thinking, the acquisition of knowledge can be best done using the rational abilities of the mind. When it comes to epistemology, rationalism represents the view that considers reason as the primary source and support of knowledge (Naicker, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The greatest strength of rationalism lies in the universality and eternity of its concept of reasoning. To this extent, the rationalism approach explains that if an individual can a particular thought then it is possible for everyone else to have such thoughts. This strength is exemplified in the wax case provided by René Descartes where he explains that the wax is referred to as wax because people are able to feel, smell and see the wax in it. On the other hand, the greatest weakness of this approach is associated with the fact that it is impossible for people to acquire all knowledge by way of thinking as held by rationalists (Scheibe and Falkenburg, 2011).
In discovering knowledge, empiricism tends to diverge from the concept of deduction, intuition and innate knowledge. Empiricism explains that the process of discovering knowledge absolutely relies on the experience of senses. Empiricists differ with the reasoning that points to innate ideas as the ones always forming the areas of subject. In this respect, the view held by empiricists is that innate knowledge does not exist in reality. Instead, the derivation and acquisition of knowledge takes place through experience, which may involve reasoning of the mind or engaging the five senses of human beings. The Locke's version of empiricism argues that none of the ideas harbored by individual can be described as inborn or innate. This version of empiricism indicates that such a condition exists because the minds of human beings are considered to be blank at the time of birth and all that becomes present in the mind as one grow older is only acquired through experience (Bogataj, 2005).
The explanation by Naicker (2012) indicates that empiricism creates the belief that a concept like the one talking about the idea of God is obtained from people’s perception of the environment around them as opposed to being innate. As such, the theory and reasoning of innate ideas are not accurate and reliable. Empiricisms also hold that they is a higher likelihood that innate ideas could still linger in the minds of human beings for a very long time before they become conscious of them. This view is opposed to the one held by rationalists which explains that human being are usually not conscious of innate ideas even up to late in life. The empiricism way of coming to the discovery of knowledge indicates that the minds of human beings are usually occupied with ideas acquired through experience and the blooming of innate ideas is not capable of making significant contribution to their knowledge regarding the world.
The greatest approach of the empiricism approach is that it plays a crucial role when it comes to the finding of factual positions and reasoning in scientific studies. In this respect, the empiricism approach finds its wide usage in science as a technique through which theories can be approved or disapproved. The greatest weakness of this approach is its inaccurate explanation regarding perception. As opposed to the belief held by empiricists, perception may not be absolutely universal because the perceptions of an individual regarding truth can very well be perceived as false by a another individual (Bogataj, 2005).
In my opinion, I think that the better approach is that of rationalism based on its clarity and the logical manner in which it explains the discovery of knowledge. This approach brings about the presentation of lines of thought that are complementary to each other. Moreover, this approach leads to the presentation of most comprehensive explanations about the acquisition of perfect ideas by individuals. The strength of this-this approach is reinforced through its components which are innate ideas and deductive reasoning.
References
Bogataj, Y. (2005). Empiricism vs. Rationalism: The Innate Character of Language . Munich: GRIN Verlag GmbH.
Naicker, S. (2012). Rationalism vs empiricism: A critique of the Chomskyan paradigm: the rise and fall of the Chomskyan empire . Saarbrücken: LAP, Lambert Academic Publishing.
Scheibe, E., & Falkenburg, B. (2011). Between Rationalism and Empiricism: Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Physics . New York, NY: Springer New York.
