Rationalism thinks that some concepts or idea are independent of experience which some fact is understood by factor alone. Rationalist support the concept of priori knowledge which indicates understanding that comes before experience and independent of experience Philosophers that support that are connected with rationalism are Descartes, Kant, and Leibniz. Empiricism thinks that some ideas or principles are independent of experience which fact need to be established by reference to experience alone. Empiricist support the idea of posteriori which indicates knowledge that comes after experience or reliant on experience.
Locke, Humes, and Berkeley are theorists that support the concept of Empiricism. Rationalism claims that all understood is innate. It declares that we are born with knowledge and find response to concerns by believing rationally. Descartes is a rationalist that strongly supports rationalism. He used suspicion to question whatever that he understood. He questioned up until he discovered one idea that was beyond a doubt, and the one idea was that he can not question his own presence.
He stated “I can not question my own existence; I believe therefore I must exist. I believe therefore I am.
” He likewise claims that he can not depend upon senses since there is a demon controling your thoughts. Let’s take an appearance at Descartes’s statement. He doubts whatever else but his own presence. He is thinking, and alive. Therefore, he lives. By having the ability to believe and knowing his exist, it makes the argument valid and noise. Rationalist tends to think understanding is a bit like math.
It needs no observations or sense understanding. The concept of 2 +2=4, we all know it is 4. There are no observations or experience needed. Let’s state you have two apples, and you were provided two apples, you will then have a total of 4 apples.
If you were to take away two apples, you are left with two apples. The logical approach requires no experience and no observation and has clear understanding which makes this argument sound and valid. Locke argued that nothing could be known before experience and that a baby was like a ‘blank slate’ that had to be filled up with information by experience; meaning we know knowing and everything we know is learned through observation and our sense perceptions. Empiricism is strongly correlates to Science where rationalism correlates with Math and Empiricism depend on experimentation and observation.
How can innate knowledge explain certain things that we have no experience before? Let’s examine food as an example. Someone trying a new dish for the first time, they have no idea how it may taste, look, for even smell. The only way they will know is by eating it (observation and experiment). Empiricism depends on its senses to learn. We can also examine a new born baby growing through the ages. The baby uses its life experience and observes the world using its senses in order to gain knowledge. The baby has no past knowledge. It cannot talk or communicate, but over time it will learn through experience.
A baby is empty and clear, we fill it with knowledge and let it has its own experience. Locke claim’s seems to be very sound and valid. Now comparing Empiricism vs. Rationalism, the two are complete opposite. The two co-exist and are total polar opposites. They will always counter argue each other and one is no more right than the other. These idea are based on self-awareness and in today’s modern world, I personally think there should be a good balance between both parties. Sometimes it may be better to think rationally or sometimes to think empirically.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment