Running head: THEORIES OF EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM 1
Theories of Empiricism and Rationalism
Both rationalism and empiricism represent the Western Philosophical responses or understandings about the condition of human beings, their knowledge, nature, and origins. Empiricists believe that there is no innate knowledge as humans learn from experience. On the other hand, rationalists share the view that knowledge is innate. For instance, Descartes thinks that ideologies about God’s existence is innate and Chomsky agrees that the ability to speak comes from within since it is preconditioned in humans. Therefore, both philosophical schools of thoughts are opposite from each other in explaining beliefs about humans. Rationalism is based on reason and logic when drawing a conclusion while empiricism depends on experience when gaining knowledge in humans. On one hand, rational thinkers argue that prior knowledge exists and on the other, empiricists prefer that experience is critical in gaining knowledge. Given the unending debates as to which is one is accurate, the article compares and contrast the two theories in order to weigh the most sound thought and ideology. Thoughts and knowledge should not be amplified by reason or experience without the other. Ideally, they should work together. However, despite this view, rationalism seems to gain more weight that empiricists thinkers.
Comparison
Despite fundamentally being different from each other, rationalism and empiricism promote skepticism by seeking the truth. In other words, they try to understand where knowledge comes from and how humans gain it. For instance, both philosophical thoughts believe in God but differ in how humans gain knowledge of God’s existence. On the other hand, both theories depend on some type of inference that cannot be verified. In this case, rationalism believes in deductive inferences from the rules of logic. On the other hand, empiricism runs inductive inferences that cannot be supported.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Despite these similarities, the differences between the two theories are significantly essential. Rationalism draws from deductive reasoning where concrete principles are used to arrive at a solution or conclusion. For instance, finding the area of a square is done by multiplying the length and the width. However, despite deductive reasoning determining the conclusion of something, the theory of empiricism argues that conclusion alone is not effective or accurate without experience. If a cup breaks and no one is there, there would be no sound produced. Due to the absence of a person who would experience the cup falling, it would be thought that there was no sound produced.
On the other hand, rationalism believes that humans are born with knowledge and truths left over from another life or dimension. The ideas can also come from God and could be demonstrated by how others have more talent in particular areas as opposed to others who have gained similar exposure to a particular thing. For instance, students exposed to the same educational facilities and learning environments have different IQ levels. This further explains why some people are more intelligent than others. In a similar manner, the theory explains how language is preconditioned in children and develops with their growth. Additionally, the theory aligns with morality concepts since individuals cannot experience justice, moral duties, or human rights. People naturally distinguish what is right or wrong. In contrary, empiricism believes that there is no innate knowledge. Humans are instead born blank and gain knowledge through learning and experience. The notion of vacuum exists and the science founded on empiricists theories would not be advanced without experience.
Most importantly, rationalism uses logic in coming up with either a solution or conclusion. Consequently, logic can also use various reasons in determining the truth and not the technique. Their concept can further be understood by the existence of intuitions. Intuition is innate lacks influence from experience. The necessary truths such as the ones found in pure mathematics do not require instances or the testimony of senses for their occurrences. In the center of modern philosophy, Immanuel Kant argues that perception emanates from natural laws that are preconditioned in our inner senses. On the other hand, empiricism believes that ideas can either be simple or complex and use the five senses when getting more detailed perceptions of things. In some instances, complex ideas would require more than t he five senses when making conclusions. In this case, knowledge does not come from logic and reasoning but from experience. This means that knowledge is not independent of experience. Knowledge cannot be drawn apriori before experiences. In this regard, there is no truth and innate knowledge.
Conclusion
Rationalists believe that even though experience is critical in initiating the process of knowledge, some preconceived ideas are irreducible to knowledge. This means that not everything can be gained through experience. Nothing can be entirely blank as even a child knows how to suck before they are born. The debate about rationalism and empiricism continues and likely to oppose each other even in the future. Empiricism is simple and argues that knowledge exists but in a non-functional form that cannot be used. For instance, one would not know how color blue looks like if they were born blind. The only way to know this is through experiencing it with sight. In the same regard, science would not be advanced if there was no practice or experience. Also, rationalism is argued to be out of touch with reality and operational in a closed environment. The universe is assumed to be a closed system where there is no learning or experience by rationalist thinkers.
In popular modern philosophy as displayed by Kant, pure reasoning as described by rationalists is greatly flawed with respect to knowing about experience particularly in the existence of God. He further demonstrates that humans cannot possibly know of the existence of certain things. On the other hand, he argues that empiricism is not entirely correct. Despite experience being important in developing human knowledge, reason is equally critical when processing the knowledge in our thoughts. In this regard, it would be prudent to argue that both reason and experience are essential in gaining and developing knowledge.
Nonetheless, in favor of rationalism, mathematical and logical truths may not be understood if humans lacked the capability to connect ideas. At the same time, morality stems from our emotions and not just from experiences. Even though the rationalism theory may appear strange, how would one explain children putting together a perfectly good sentence without understanding what a verb is? After all, empiricists undermine creativity since their idea only allows people to combine and separate things. However, rationalism already comes with the necessary tools for creativity. For instance, humans are born with preconditioned language that enables them to speak without experience. Therefore, rationalism has more weight than empiricism.
