Constructivism Essay

Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.

Kant credited both empiricism and rationalism movements. He believes that they both contributed to human’s knowledge and should not reject neither one of them. So, he keeps some parts of those principles and defines empiricism a posteriori knowledge and rationalism as a priori knowledge. His goal is to explain and then justify the possibility of scientific knowledge.

Rationalism is the theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than religious belief or emotional, while empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from senses-experience which stimulated the rise of experimental science. The philosophers Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume all have different views on the existence and nature of external objects. Some see it as the view on objects as everything is sense related other see it that it is all from thought but the object is not existent.

David Hume, a philosopher who raised radical doubts about the rationality of the scientific enterprise. Hume believed that “experience can only assure us of what we are actually observing at present, or can remember having observed in the past” (Cottingham, 2008). In this paper I will show that David Hume’s claim on induction that when there is real knowledge of an event, it cannot correctly justify inductive assumptions.

When people think about empiricists, they usually discuss views of great philosophers such as George Berkeley and David Hume. Empiricists believe that all knowledge comes from the senses. Rationalists, on the other hand, believe that we can gain knowledge through the inspection of innate ideas. Although Berkeley and Hume are both empiricists, they still have different opinions about the existence of God. Berkeley's philosophy uses God as the central figure in his metaphysical system. However, Hume uses scientific observation to postulate his theories and he does not rely on God to support his arguments. I will argue that Hume's Philosophy is stronger then Berkeley's

Empiricism is defined as anyone who beliefs that knowledge is gained primarily from sensory experience. Empiricists stress the importance of experience in the pursuit of gaining knowledge. The term experience is complicated in Empiricism since that are many different types of experiences. There are inner experiences such as dreams, and fantasies. There are inner thoughts, such as vivid mental experiences. However, empiricist tends to believe that experiences are directly tied to sensory information and it is this input that is the true primary source of knowledge. Empiricists insist that knowledge cannot be gained without sensory experience and all

This is the assumption underlying all our ideas of causality. If the future does not resemble the past, then all our reason based on cause and effect will crumble. When Hume proposed questions such as “Is there any more intelligible proposition then to affirm that all trees will flourish in December and January, and will decay in May and June?” (49), Hume demonstrates that it is not a relation of ideas that future will resemble the past; it is possible that the course of nature will change. Therefore, what happens in the future is neither a relation of ideas, nor a matter of fact. “It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of past to future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.”(51)

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who took ideas from the empiricists and rationalists to create is own view of how humans come to knowledge. Essentially updating and blending science and logic based knowledge. Kant was a rationalist, yet had empirical views much like John Locke and David Hume. Kant agreed with Hume and Locke on experience. Yet, Kant developed a priori idea of how humans learn to learn that was very different from Locke and Hume.

It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.

To begin with the question of rationalism versus empiricism, it is important to understand, first, what it is that rationalists argue. This school of thought infers that all knowledge comes from within, an innate source that

Rationalism and empiricism can be related. The two methods only conflict when covering the same subject. Philosophers can be either a rationalist or empiricist but

Constructivism is a coherent theory of learning that emerged as a prevailing paradigm in the last part of the twentieth century. Constructivism is a theory which brings cogitation to pedagogy (Bruner, 1966). Constructivism capitalizes on the ways in which human beings create their own personal construct of reality by understanding and experiencing the world. The main underlying assumption of constructivism is that individuals are actively involved right from the birth in constructing personal meaning.

Empiricism is an approach to philosophical thinking assuming that all human knowledge arises originally from sense-experiences. John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume are most notably known for the branch of empirical philosophy. Philosopher David Hume discusses what he believes are “bundles of perception.” He argues that we can never experience the objective world and alternatively only observe patterns. According to Hume, there are two methods used to detect these patterns, unit and continuity and causality. Casualty is defined as a relationship between ideas that allows you to infer knowledge beyond your immediate experience. Ultimately, Hume’s argument identifies the flaws and limitations involving casualty. Hence, the limitations surrounding casualty deal with the problem of induction, necessary connection and ultimately how it can lead to circularity and infinite regress.

Kant believes that questioning rationalism is the building block of knowing what is true and what is not and the difference between them. Empiricism only bases the truth on what is observable by the senses, yet since the senses can be fallible the truth is not guaranteed.

Throughout the majority of my education, including college, I have felt like a passive member of the classroom. Teachers saw me as a clear slate that needed to be filled with information. I consumed countless facts, and memorized numerous processes, most of them not being my own. This approach to teaching has proven to be unsuccessful to the goals of education. Students are diverse, with their own learning styles and their own knowledge that they bring to the table, and these should be supported and expanded on in the classroom. The goal of education is to support learners and thinkers, and not to condition minds to all think the same ways.