The Ideals of Rationalism

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

(Descartes, Pg.19). On the other end of the spectrum, apriori knowledge ,which is an understanding based on reasoning, is a more efficient way of explaining the method of doubt presented by Descartes.

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.

- integrative rationalism = consider religion an integral part of the whole enterprise of rational inquiry and accept the following:

Edmund Gettier’s argument that justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge is correct. There are many scenarios in which the conditions for justified true belief are met but cannot be said to qualify as knowledge; therefore justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge.

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

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.

Schmitt, oddly, holds on to the ideas he has about rationality. He talks about why the idea of the political is grounded on the distinction friend-enemy. The friend and enemy difference does not essentially rest on those of other scopes of existence. Consequently, the enemy does not have to be wicked, horrid, or unreasonable. “Rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere.” (28) What he is clearly trying to say is rationality is essential for him to make progress in his belief.

A priori knowledge is knowledge gained independent of experience. It is the knowledge that can be gained from learning the language, but without actual experience or need to consult the external world. For example, someone who knows that “All bachelors are unmarried men” does not need to experience being unmarried to defend this statement. By having knowledge of the language, one knows that, by definition, a bachelor is an unmarried man.

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 – knowledge acquired using reasoning, using intuition and deduction to analyse how the person concluded and how they validate the argument or concepts presented.

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

In Plato's Theaetetus, he says, "Any one forms the true opinion of anything without rational explanation, you may say that his mind is truly exercised, but has no knowledge." This is quite true that when one can state a true opinion supported by a rational explanation, one's opinion constitutes knowledge, since perceptions of senses are excluding in this case. Moreover, a rational explanation does not contain any subjectivity, it is an objective entity for humans to understand true knowledge. For this reason, I fall with rationalism and believe it is a superior philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge.

They are the result of generalizing experiences. Rationalism believes that the ideas of empiricism cannot be dependable without considering future claims that can be proven. Such factor as the laws of nature or cause and effect on an event, cause and effect, where one event causes the effect of the other event, stem from rationalism are inherently

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to