Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rationalism vs empiricism open essay
Rationalism vs empiricism open essay
Rationalism vs empiricism open essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rationalism vs empiricism open essay
For a lengthy period of time, philosophers have been fiercely debating the classification of philosophical epistemology into two categories: rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge can only be gained through obtaining facts via observation or experimentation, while rationalism is obtaining knowledge through logical reasoning . Though rationalism and empiricism are very viable methods of thought in philosophy on their own, these philosophical schools’ arguments become much stronger when used in conjunction. This is mainly due to the fact that by following empiricism, we gain knowledge through observation that we will be able to interpret using rationalism. Using these two methods in tandem would allow philosophical thinkers to approach many questions in a more holistic manner. This way of thought is very reminiscent of the scientific method , and this method has proven itself time and time again throughout history. If the scientific method was not an effective way of solving scientific problems, then scientists using it would have invented a new way to gather information. However, this method is still strong, and a combination of empiricism and rationalism would prove to be just as effective.
Additionally, these two methods of thought complement each other quite nicely. For example, scientists often ponder the origins of the universe. Most of them fall back upon the Big Bang Theory, which is commonly explained as a “violent event” that was caused by the expansion of a “single point in space” (Big Bang). However, no one knows what happened before the Big Bang occurred because there is no evidence supporting anything existing beforehand. At this point, a rational approach must be taken to infer the origi...
... middle of paper ...
...ities to the scientific method, the combination of these two philosophical schools is proven to be an effective method of thought because it provides a holistic approach to the truth itself.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. "Summa Theologica." Classics of Philosophy. Ed. Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 443-53. Print.
"The Big Bang." NASA Science. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. .
Descartes, Rene. "Meditations on First Philosophy." Classical Library. 2001. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. .
Hume, David. "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. .
Beuchamp, Tom (ed), David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ( Oxford University Press 1999).
In Canada there is a process to lawmaking that follows the rationalistic model — they are the functionalist view, conflict theory and the ‘moral entrepreneur’ thesis. In this essay, the rationalistic model, will at first, be explained then this paper will inform the reader to the functionalist view, the conflict perspective then the moral entrepreneur theory and what four different Canadian laws follow this theory. The essay will then, finally, explain which law is best understood with reference to the theory that it is linked to in comparison with others.
... a theory should be able to explain a wide variety of things, not just only what it was intended to explain.
Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote one of his famous writings, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in 1779, which is a conversation between three individuals discussing religion and the various aspects surrounding it. The three members of the dialogue are Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes. Demea represents fideism, which means that he believes that one has to rely on faith, not reason. Philo represents skepticism and is the individual whose ideas are closest to Hume’s own personal views on religion. Cleanthes represents theological rationalism, which is the belief that one can learn about God through evidence in nature. A major topic of discussion in Hume’s Dialogues between Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes is the argument from design.
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.
David Hume is was a strong advocator and practitioner of a scientific and empirical way of thinking which is reflected in his philosophy. His skeptical philosophy was a 180 degree shift from the popular rational philosophy of the time period. Hume attempted to understand “human nature” through our psychological behaviors and patterns which, when analyzing Hume’s work, one can clearly see its relation to modern day psychology. Hume was a believer in that human behavior was influenced not by reason but by desire. He believed that “Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit—these passions, mixed in various proportions and distributed throughout society, are now (and from the beginning of the world always have been) the source of all the actions and projects that have ever...
Thomas, and Paul E. Sigmund. St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics. New York: Norton,
Although philosophy rarely alters its direction and mood with sudden swings, there are times when its new concerns and emphases clearly separate it from its immediate past. Such was the case with seventeenth-century Continental rationalism, whose founder was Rene Descartes and whose new program initiated what is called modern philosophy. In a sense, much of what the Continental rationalists set out to do had already been attempted by the medieval philosophers and by Bacon and Hobbes. But Descartes and Leibniz fashioned a new ideal for philosophy. Influenced by the progress and success of science and mathematics, their new program was an attempt to provide philosophy with the exactness of mathematics. They set out to formulate clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Their emphasis was upon the rational ability of the human mind, which they now considered the source of truth both about man and about the world. Even though they did not reject the claims of religion, they did consider philosophical reasoning something different than supernatural revelation. They saw little value in feeling and enthusiasm as means for discovering truth, but they did believe that the mind of an individual is structured in such a way that simply by operating according to the appropriate method it can discover the nature of the universe. The rationalists assumed that what they could think clearly with their minds did in fact exist in the world outside their minds. Descartes and Leibniz even argued that certain ideas are innate in the human mind, that, given the proper occasion, experience would cause...
David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design
Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature. Excerpts from Book III. Part I. Sect. I-II.”
Hume, D. (1748). Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding. In T.S. Gendler, S. Siegel, S.M. Cahn (Eds.) , The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present (pp. 422-428). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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 (b.1632,d. 1704) was an influential British philosopher and political theorist whose philosophies and theories continue to inspire. He is often viewed as the founder of British Empiricism and one of the foundational influences of modern, liberal governments.
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.
3) The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Whether God Exists? 1920. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm. K. Knight. 2003.