Empiricism And Rationalism

Descartes is now clear on his perception of God so he looks at material things. He points out that a body must exist in reality, because for him to dream about his body, it must exist before he would know what to dream about. So although he can perceive qualities of material things, he is still confused about some things because of is imperfect perception. He concludes that the senses are meant to help him get around in the world, not to lead him to the truth. ( SparkNotes Editors, 2012 )

     On the journey to find truth to base all thought upon, Descartes explains his first step in doing so. “Never accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.”(Kolak, Pg.228). Assuming that everything you see is fictitious, Descartes believed he had no senses at all; “body, shape, extension, motion, and place are unreal.”(Weissman, Pg.23). Our senses have failed us all at one point or another in our lives, so why use the senses as a base for thought? The most famous quote and philosophy by Descartes in history ever, “Je pense, donc je suis, cogito ergo sum” (Durant, Pg.639). “I think, therefore I am” was the first step towards a basis to understand truth, and leaning away from truth through the senses.

To know anything about the external world on the basis or your sensory experiences, you have to know that you are not dreaming.

     This is where the wax argument comes into play. All the properties of the piece of wax that we perceive with the senses change as the wax melts. This is true as well of its primary properties, such as shape, extension and size. Yet the wax remains the same piece of wax as it melts. We know the wax through our mind and judgement, not through our senses or imagination. Therefore, every act of clear and distinct knowledge of corporeal matter also provides even more certain evidence for the existence of Descartes as a thinking thing. Therefore his mind is much clearer and more distinctly know to him than his body. At this

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

Some have suggested that René Descartes argues that sense perception relies on the mind rather than on the body. Descartes asserts that we can know our mind more readily than we can know our body. In support of this idea he gives the example of a piece of wax which is observed in its solid form and its liquid form. After pointing out the difficulties of relying on the senses of the physical body to understand the nature of the wax he makes this claim: [P]erception ... is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining. ... [R]ather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone (Section 31). 1 This quote is perhaps the most direct statement of the author's thesis on this subject.

Descartes explains that the “ideas or thoughts of these things were hovering before my mind”, not perceptions of things existing outside of him (Descartes, 24). It follows that he cannot come to know of things for certain through sense perception.

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

He finds it plausible that we are all living in a dream and we have never experienced reality. He can no longer give any credence to his senses and finds himself in a place of complete uncertainty. Descartes comes to the conclusion that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than his own mind. He has discovered that even bodies are not accurately perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagination, and are only accurately being perceived by the intellect. He also realizes that they are not distinguished through being touched, smelled, or tasted, but by being understood alone. (An apple is an apple because our mind tells us that it is an apple.) It is the faculty of reason that gives the knowledge and lets the mind know the truths and essences of objects. Descartes assumes that all of us can be decided by our senses, someone can see something far away, and then discover that is not what we thought it was. Or even a oar when is immerse half in water attempt to be bent, but instead is straight. Descartes think that we cannot always be sure of what we sense, and gives the example of himself seated by the fire.

Before these changes were apparent, Descartes pointed out the difficulties of relying on the senses, of the physical body. In section 31 of Meditation two, he says that the perception he has, "is a case not of vision or touch or imagination - nor has it ever been, despite previous appearances - but of purely mental scrutiny". Descartes shows that our senses cannot be used to have knowledge of things in the external world, and that knowledge of these things must come through the mind alone.

Once Descartes established himself as a "thinking thing", his attention turns to the external world. Descartes reflects upon his dealing with physical objects, and questions the state of physical nature, dealing directly with the senses. Restating the fact that Descartes believes that these sensations of taste, touch, smell, and the like can be fooled, he attacks these bodily perceptions, not from the point of "what makes them true", but rather "what makes them false". These senses lead him to ideas of external objects, which he claims to perceive clearly and distinctly, yet he is not

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

Epistemology- Epistemology is the division between empiricism and rationalism in different ways of thinking about how we reason and rationalise that knowledge and how it is reliable and certain, epistemology gives us our professional theories, beliefs and practices and how we differentiate between what is true and false. (Scott, 2014).

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

Firstly, Descartes deals with the issue of empiricism- the theory that our knowledge is derived from our sensory experiences. Since we know from everyday errors that our senses have the ability to deceive us fairly often so making our perceptions to be something that it is not. For example, there are lots of examples of optical illusions and the fact that the train tracks may appear to converge from a distance. Consequently, we ought to