Differences Between Rationalism And Empiricism

Do we have innate ideas? Offer your view with reference to the work of Descartes and Locke

This author ascribes to the empiricism paradigm. This paradigm is similar to empirical knowing in that it is based on the premise that what is known can be verified through the senses, or

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.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

Locke also believes that people have innate ideas through experiences. He has three explanations for this idea. Firstly, if we had innate ideas, we would know that we have them, which means that if you have ideas they are conscience and everything you think, you think you think. Secondly, if there were innate truths of reason we would all agree on them. Lastly, our memory cannot recall these innate ideas.

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes takes the reader through a methodological exercise in philosophical enquiry. After stripping the intellect of all doubtful and false beliefs, he re-examines the nature and structure of being in an attempt to secure a universally valid epistemology free from skepticism. Hoping for the successful reconciliation of science and theology, Descartes works to reconstruct a new foundation of absolute and certain truth to act as a catalyst for future scientific research by “showing that a mathematical [rational-objective] physics of the world is attainable by creatures with our intellectual capacities and faculties” (Shand 1994, p.

The next two, rationalism and empiricism are the combination of knowledge via science. Knowledge via rationalism involves logical reasoning. It is the combination of stating precise ideas (often in the form of syllogism), applying logical rules, and making logical conclusions based on the ideas. The problem is when the syllogism’s content or either premises is false. The knowledge is not based on the content, but on the logical manner it is presented. Knowledge via empiricism involves gaining knowledge through objective observation and the experiences of one’s senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching (collection of facts), and views knowledge, as “I’ll believe when I see it”.

Furthermore, Locke’s profound analysis on sources of knowledge contributed to today’s psychological analysis of the unsolved dilemma of nature versus nurture while significantly shaping the foundation of modern psychology. As Locke introduced empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he was an important figure of Enlightenment to foster and alternate the schools of thinking in many spheres including here philosophy and psychology among many others.

Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas.  Then the question arises of

Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate ideas then they would be universal ideas present

John Locke, an empiricist belonging to seventeenth century philosophy, is well-known today for his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In chapter ii of Book I of this work, Locke firmly rejects the theory of nativism that proposes innate ideas in humans. An important disclaimer to be noted before continuing is that Locke makes his case by first interpreting nativism in its simplest form (occurrent nativism) -- as opposed to the dispositional nativism that requires a sophisticated process of discovering the content of one’s mind. This distinction is significant since it is the latter definition of nativism that most of Locke’s opponents use to weaken An Essay. In any case, however, the nativist individual would claim that innate ideas are present in man from birth, with senses beginning in the womb, and that these primary ideas meet the soul as soon as they come into existence in the world. It is possible that Locke could accept the presence of innate capacities that make it possible to acquire knowledge, but he could not agree that the innate principles exist in an imprinted manner independent of sensory experience. He arrives at the hypothesis that the human mind is a tabula rasa upon which true knowledge can only be formed from empirical experience. The most convincing defense that Locke makes against the doctrine of innate ideas is a rebuttal to the argument that stems from universal consent. If Locke’s criticizers wanted to best dispute Book I of An Essay, they

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes strives first and foremost to provide an infallibly justified foundation for the empirical sciences, and second to prove the existence of God. I will focus on the first and second meditations in my attempt to show that, in his skepticism of the sources of knowledge, he fails to follow the rules he has set out in the Discourse on Method. First I claim that Descartes fails to draw the distinction between pure sensation and inference, which make up what he calls sensation, and then consider the consequences of this failure to follow his method. Second, I will show that in his treatment of thinking Descartes fails to distinguish between active and passive thinking.

Plato and Locke have opposite opinions on the matter of innate ideas. Plato argues that the recognition of truth in reality is derived from the "recollection" of truth in the soul. A necessary part of Plato's argument is that "recollection" of Truth depends upon the existence of an immortal soul. Locke, on the other hand, rejects Plato's argument by stating that the recognition of truth is not dependent on "recollection" but is rather "self-evident." In other words, Locke argues that one does not need to "understand" truth to know it or admit of the existence of an immortal soul, for truth according to Locke reveals itself by virtue of its being true. This paper will analyze the arguments of each philosopher and show why I believe Plato to have the better argument on the matter of "recollection" and innate ideas in the soul.

The problem he has with us thinking like this is that all sorts of things would end up being defined as innate. Locke thought that we had the capacity to recognise “self evident” truths and that we do have an innate capacity allowing us to recognise things, however they are not actually innate ideas within us, but ideas we gain from experience which our innate capacity allows us to understand. He was of the opinion that ideas are material of thinking and that there was no thinking before perception. While the mind has the capacity to think, it is not actually constantly thinking. For example, if you are asleep but not dreaming, then according to Locke, your mind isn’t actually thinking.

John Locke (1632-1704) was the first of the classical British empiricists. (Empiricists believed that all knowledge derives from experience. These philosophers were hostile to rationalistic metaphysics, particularly to its unbridled use of speculation, its grandiose claims, and its epistemology grounded in innate ideas) If Locke could account of all human knowledge without making reference to innate ideas, then his theory would be simpler, hence better, than that of Descartes. He wrote, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas: How comes it to be furnished? To his I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.” (Donald Palmer, p.165)