Rationalism - The theory that all knowledge is derived from reason rather than experience.
After exploring several different philosophers on the two different epistemological theories, Rationalism and Empiricism, I have concluded that ideas supporting Empiricism seem a great deal more plausible than those embracing Rationalism. From reason alone, neither knowledge nor truth can be obtained about anything in the physical world. Taking away our sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing would completely sever any connection to any objects or concepts outside our minds. Therefore, knowledge of what exists must extend to something beyond the point of reason.
Empiricists, such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, support the
theory that all knowledge is derived from sense experience; hence, there is no
such thing as innate ideas. A rationalist would argue that a person’s sense of
morality, the ability to determine right from wrong, is an innate principle.
However, there are many examples that contradict this. A child depends on a
parent to teach them what is good and what is bad. It is unfortunate, though,
that some parents allow their children to grow up believing that some things
(like drugs, cursing, or even fighting) is alright. There have been cases where
parents have even encouraged behaviors that have been determined morally wrong
in our society. These young adults, who had relied on another person to
demonstrate what is socially acceptable and what is not, may commit acts of
“wrong” because their experience
tells them these acts are “right”. Thus,
morality is a learned concept.
Another example a rationalist may bring up is that no one
needs to teach a person how to walk or how to use his or her fingers and so
this concept in innate. While it is true that no one needs to teach this to a person,
could he or she learn to walk or use the hands if he or she had no sense of
sight or touch? Any movement of the body is constantly being analyzed and
assessed by the person in order to improve his or her coordination. A person
needs to have sense experience in order to respond to other objects, such as
the ground to walk on or a drinking cup that requires a person to grasp the
handle.
Rationalism is invalid because the knowledge and the understanding of
principles require the use of the sense experience. The concept of color, for instance,
demands a sense of sight. A person born blind would not be able to comprehend
color, because the idea of “blue” or “red” can be understood by observation
through sight.
Essentially, the majority of science is based on principles
within Empiricism. Theories and laws are based on what we observe in the
natural world. Empiricism is crucial to any advancement in science because
observation through the senses in indispensable. According to Locke, simple
ideas are external. Therefore, they must be observed in some way in order to be
known. You cannot expect a scientist to reason
the precise outcomes of an experiment that’s never been executed. He needs to
take his experiences with certain objects, and from that he can make
predictions about other ideas; but not until he conceives a pattern. Concepts
are discovered when two or more simple ideas are observed together, which make
up more complex ideas.
Reason uses ideas obtained through either intuition or
deduction; otherwise, they are innate. How can intuition be a source of concepts
or knowledge? Deduction only works when you are entirely positive that you know
all the possibilities or connections, which can never be true as long as there
is knowledge to be discovered. And how can you deduct from a limitless infinity
of possibilities? These three concepts, on which Rationalism is rooted, render
this theory of reason invalid. Therefore, only what can be perceived through
the senses can be used to determine, with certainty, what is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment or ask questions!