In order to understand the anciently debated issue on the origin of ideas one must first recognize the two theories of rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists argue that only experience, sensory information sent to the brain, is the ultimate source of our ideas. Adversely, rationalists argue that while experience is a prominent component, they believe some ideas are innate (that some are genetic predispositions).
Given
this is a debatable issue I side with the idea that offers the most plausible explanation,
and that I believe to be is Empiricism. Empiricists argue that the ultimate
source of human knowledge is experience. John Locke (a famous empiricist)
claims that the perception of raw sensory data triggers a process that in turn
leads to every one of our beliefs. When analyzed in depth, it becomes
increasingly difficult to pinpoint one idea that did not result from an experience.
It was by some sort of sensory data-hear, see, smell, taste, or touch-that
triggered that belief. In contrast, another group of philosophers offer a multifaceted
account of human thoughts. These are rationalists whom (again) argue some ideas
are innate. Plato, for example, believed that we are born with prior knowledge of
certain forms like mathematical concepts (things equal each other, smallness
and largeness, etc.), beauty, virtue, and even color. Descartes in Meditations believes the idea of
infinity and God, are innate, as well the knowledge that we exist. Though these rationalists have certainly made
a point, there is one flaw that must be pointed out. If rationalists claim so full-heartedly
that innate ideas give us fundamental truths about reality, why is it that they
themselves cannot even agree? Plato believes in innate knowledge of Forms and
Descartes disagrees, but believes in the innate knowledge of God and a soul.
How could they waver upon this subject if it is supposedly fundamental
knowledge? Furthermore, rationalists use “the color example” in order to
support their claim but, again, it does not follow. When a large array of shades
of blue are lined in front of a person who is very “color oriented”, and is then
asked to name a shade in between two types of blue, the very “color orientated”
person can do it. The rationalists would say that he “created” the color in his
mind without prior experience. However if one was to be born blind they would
never know what the color blue looks like. Empiricists would persist that the “color
oriented” person simply combined different shades, from already pre-existing
shades of blue that he had prior knowledge of, in order to create that supposedly
“new” shade.
Lastly
to additionally support the empiricist claim one must take into account Descartes’
“Wax Argument”. Here Descartes attempts
to explain that we know the mind better than sensory derived experiences (empiricism).
When he picks up the wax he notices it has a hard sound when struck, a specific
color, taste, feel, and scent. However when held close to a fire all of those
things change. So Descartes wonders what characteristics the wax actually has.
He answers flexibility, extension and being moveable. When reflecting upon
extension (and flexibility) he realizes that the wax has a different volume
when melted, boiled, and frozen, etc. So his mind could conceive infinite possibilities
of the volume of the wax. His imagination though is not able to perceive
infinity. This is only able to be clear when it is carefully thought upon. So he goes on to say that one may know more
about the wax through the thought process of learning and not so much as the
use of senses. A criticism to this however is that for one to describe an
object they must use their senses in order to truly understand it, to be truly certain.
So the Descartes did not fully explain why the mind is better than the body.
Explanatory breadth Simply empiricism has more explanatory breadth because it covers that “all” ideas are formed through experience. Rationalism only accounts for specific origin of ideas (i.e. the idea of God, the ideas of Mathematics, moral concepts of beauty and virtue, etc.) Empiricism allows for an explanation of every idea.
Explanatory depth In all actuality Rationalism has
greater explanatory depth, especially when addressing certain ideas. This is
not necessarily a good thing since it has to keep explaining on top of
explaining in order for the idea to make sense. Empiricism fully explains where
certain concepts come from, and it takes much less depth than it does with Rationalism.
Rationalism fails to address one specific fundamental truth of reality. Several
ideas are out there that do not correlate. Also for example Rationalism needs
long explanations like the wax or the color argument in order to make a point.
Simplicity Empiricism has greater simplicity
where as Rationalism is more of a complicated explanation. You must take into
account three theories alone in order to even consider yourself a rationalist
(induction/ deduction thesis, innate knowledge thesis, or the innate concept
thesis).
Conservatism Although it is still a widely
debated issue, empiricism is the most excepted theory out of the two. Also most
of modern science is based off of empiricism, much more practical than its
overly skeptical counterpart.
3. Therefore Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of knowledge.
Angie,
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent defense of the empiricists' argument. You touched on many reasons why the sensors of our body are the ultimate source of ideas. I do not believe, however, that you fully deconstructed the arguments of the rationalists. You argue that because the most influential rationalists could not agree on which ideas are innate, their overall position is flawed. However, it could also be said that the sheer volume of potentially innate ideas indicate some truth in the rationalism argument. For example, the idea of infinity is a concept which we will never experience, and yet the very existence of the word suggests that it is indeed an idea. The key to innate ideas is that they do not have to be observable, measurable or even real, but as long as we can conceive of them, they exist.
This being said, I think it would have served your argument better to face, and deconstruct these potentially innate ideas individually, rather than claim that the disputes between them proves the underlying argument illegitimate.