Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Perspectives on diversity
How does diversity enhance your own life
How does diversity enhance your own life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Perspectives on diversity
Albert Einstein said that the only source of knowledge is experience. Rationalists seek to discover knowledge through reason only considering that sensory experience is deceptive, therefore unreliable. Empiricists argue that experience is all we have to gather knowledge and we will have to settle for less certainty. Thus the great debate on whether or not experience is the source of all knowledge. John Locke argues that there are no innate ideas, all of us being a tabula rasa when we are born. People with disabilities cannot be so certain of things so they basically have no other choice to rely on their sensory experience in order to gain knowledge. Locke says that knowledge does come from ideas, but these ideas come from experience. He believes …show more content…
Experiencing new things all the time can definitely improve one 's knowledge, but reason helps determine how much of this knowledge is accumulated through experience which can be useful. Our brain retains information on a daily basis, but how much from that we can consider knowledge? If that information teaches us something it can be considered knowledge that we can pass it on to others. Most of the times people tend to believe everything they hear and consider that they know more than others. This give a person the belief that they have the right to tell others what they know. It results in becoming more an opinion if one did not experiment with it themselves leading to knowledge lost in the end. To pin point an absolute truth is very difficult to identify from all the information gathered throughout life. It can be useful knowledge if just experience is enough. This is the beauty of being human after all, as humans we acquire knowledge till the day we die, regardless what the source. The bigger the well of knowledge we accumulate, the better chances we will understand our world and to try to live a harmonious life. If knowledge is indeed power, then we might get the power to avoid misunderstanding each other, which can head off a lot of problems. Richard Rorty in the Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature said it best, “The eventual demarcation of philosophy from science was made possible by the notion that
One of Locke’s largest points is "All ideas come from sensation or reflection” (Locke 101). He thinks that man is completely blank when they are born and that their basic senses are what gives them knowledge. Locke states, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper” (Locke 101). Locke is basically saying that human nature is like a blank slate, and how men experience life in their own ways is what makes them good or evil. Overall, Locke believes that any and all knowledge is only gained through life
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.
Our knowledge is a key to our success and happiness in our life to give us personal satisfaction. Knowledge is power but not always. Sometimes our self-awareness and growth as an individual gives us negative thoughts that make us want to go back to undo it. Everyone wants to unlearn a part in our life that brought us pain and problems. Good or bad experiences brought by true wisdom can be used for our self-acceptance, self-fulfillment and these experiences would make us stronger as we walk to the road of our so called “life”, but Douglas’s and my experience about knowledge confirmed his belief that “Knowledge is a curse”. Both of us felt frustrated and sad from learning knowledge.
So to say, knowledge can either make or break a person. It can act as a benefit, for power, or loss, for ignorance. “Do not take for granted what you know. Ask yourself how you know what you know; ask yourself whom it benefits, whom it hurts and why.” (Blackboard: Knowledge is Power)
Rationalism and empiricism have always been on opposite sides of the philosophic spectrum, Rene Descartes and David Hume are the best representative of each school of thought. Descartes’ rationalism posits that deduction, reason and thus innate ideas are the only way to get to true knowledge. Empiricism on the other hand, posits that by induction, and sense perception, we may find that there are in fact no innate ideas, but that truths must be carefully observed to be true.
...lusion, the quest for more knowledge and power can only be perceived as bad if it twists and corrupts the mind. But in reality, it is indeed a good thing to gain more knowledge and the power that comes with it since development and human advancement cannot have come this far without it. Knowledge, a popular adage says, is power!
John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding his primary thesis is our ideas come from experience, that the human mind from birth is a blank slate. (Tabula Rasa) Only experience leaves an impression in our brain. “External objects impinge on our senses,” which interpret ate our perceptions of various objects. The senses fill the mind with content. Nothing can exist in the mind that was not first experienced by the senses. Dualism resembles Locke’s theory that your mind cannot perceive something that the senses already have or they come in through the minds reflection on its own operation. Locke classifies ideas as either simple or complex, simple ideas being the building blocks for complex ideas.
Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas. Then the question arises of
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It is mainly concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question of what distinguishes true or adequate knowledge from otherwise false or inadequate knowledge (Heylighen). The major branches of epistemological theory are rationalism, empiricism and mysticism. Rationalism implies that knowledge is obtained through reason and introspection. Ones ideas are justified by sense experience, but if the senses and intuition are in conflict, the sensory evidence must be discarded. In empiricism, knowledge is obtained through observation and experiment. Models and theories may be used to organize this sensory experience, but if theories contradict experience they are wrong. In mysticism, knowledge is obtained through faith, emotions or revelation but if observation or intuition contradict, the knowledge is thus deemed wrong (“Rationalism”). Doubt, as a Persian Proverb once said, is the key to knowledge. It is one of the influencing factors in the expansion of knowledge. A fact that is conside...
The debate between rationalist and empiricist philosophers looks at the nature of knowledge, and specifically, how we gain this knowledge. Rationalists and empiricists take opposite, and sometimes mutually exclusive, views on how knowledge is obtained.
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.
Unlike rationalists, empiricists believe that sense perception is the main source of knowledge. John Locke explained this by dividing ideas into 2 parts: 1) simple, and 2) complex. Simple ideas are based only on perception, like color, size, shape, etc. Complex ideas are formed when simple ideas are combined.
To the empiricists, our mind is a blank slate when entering the world and only through experience are marks left on it. Empiricists are content with believing in conclusions that are probable rather than absolutely certain (Lawhead). Our sense experiences may not provide complete certainty as rationalists would like, but it is all we have to go on. Empiricists are against the speculation that rationalists tend to make. Empiricists believe every idea, concept, or term must be tested by tracing it back to an original experience from which it was derived (Lawhead). Empiricists also differ from rationalists by claiming that we have no innate ideas. While some ideas may seem universal, the empiricists would say these are expressions of the relations of our ideas or the generalizations from experience (Lawhead). For example,
That everything in our mind is in idea. It all could be developed by human reason, not innate ideas. Locke goes on to describe his theory in order for your mind to gain knowledge humans will have to fill it up their brain with ideas, and learn through their five senses. Since, the innate ideas was not that relevant to Locke he needed to come up with another perceptions. Locke then suggested that external experience called as sensations; this experience which we can attain our knowledge through our senses that we have such as smells, touch and color. In other words, it is about analyses the characteristics of an object. The second kind of experience which Locke mentions is internal experience known as reflection, it is summarize those personal experience such as our thoughts, thinking, and feelings. He says that all knowledge come from sensations or reflection, “These two are the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have,” (page186). Therefore, the sense and observation make up the whole of knowledge. On the contrary, as for Descartes views he believes we do have innate
If it cannot be experienced, then there is no real benefit of this knowledge. If there is no benefit, then logically, the knowledge is not valuable in terms of the individual purposes of any human. Therefore, the value of knowledge is diminished if it is not applied and it would be fair to say that the use with purpose is the only way to develop and maintain knowledge. Furthermore, how can any knowledge that cannot be used be useful? Indeed, if some information is not applicable to any aspects of a particular person’s life, then this person is extremely likely to forget it. This implies that the value of knowledge is relative to each individual knower and always depends on his/her own perspective. Therefore, the application does determine the value. Whereas, without application in the real world the knowledge is just a belief since it cannot be experienced and thus cannot be