Rationalism and Empiricism

            In philosophy, there are two different arguments that try to explain where our ideas originate.  The first idea presented is Rationalism. Rationalism states that we are born with some innate ideas while the rest of our knowledge comes from experience. The next idea is Empiricism, which states that we are born with no innate ideas and that all of our knowledge comes strictly from experience. I believe that all of our ideas are learned only through experience. Therefore, I agree with the argument of Empiricism. For example, our knowledge of certain things such as language and mathematics comes only from experience. Neanderthals and caveman knew that in order to survive they needed to communicate if there was a predator nearby or a problem occurring. So, language developed over time and has evolved into many diverse languages. Only through experience can language be learned. No human is born knowing how to speak perfect English, French or Spanish, etc. Also, mathematics or physics is not something that people suddenly understood. And people still don’t fully understand it to this day. Even the great mathematicians and philosophers of our time needed to meditate and preform many tests and experiments before fully understanding what they were studying. Pythagoras did not just wake up one morning and know the Pythagorean theorem. Although, he may have been aware that a formula existed he certainly did not know right away that A²+B²=C². He needed experience first.

            To better support the idea of Empiricism, let's dissect Descartes’s wax example. A solid piece of wax is hard and not malleable. But, when placed near a fire, its properties change to soft and malleable. Descartes states that unless this idea is innate within us, no one could tell right away that a melted piece of wax and a solid piece of wax are the same thing. A person would need to experience the wax melting themselves. Someone would need to take a piece of wax and place it near a fire. Then, they would begin to understand that although the properties of the wax begin to change, it is still nonetheless a piece of wax. But, only through experience could someone understand this idea. This is the same for all ideas.

            Explanatory Breadth: The theory of empiricism explains more ideas than the theory of rationalism. Rationalism may account for instincts, feelings and emotions but these are not considered ideas. Therefore, they cannot really prove that any ideas are innate. Empiricism, however, can give many examples of ideas and knowledge that come from experience.

            Explanatory Depth: Empiricism can explain in greater detail the origin of ideas. Rationalism cannot argue that knowledge and ideas are innate. But, Empiricism can explain in well thought out arguments how certain things, such as our intellect, comes from different experiences. 

            Simplicity: Rationalism is more simplistic and has only a few parts to it. It merely attempts to explain only some ideas. However, Empiricism tries to explain how we learn all ideas. So, It takes into account all types of experiences and perceptions and how these things shape the world around us. Empiricism is definitely a more complex idea.

            Conservatism: Both of these ideas are still alive and relevant in today’s society. While some people may still believe in rationalism, others may still believe in empiricism. Therefore, they are both equally conservative.

1.     Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of knowledge.

2.     Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and explanatory breadth, whereas Rationalism has a little more simplicity. Both are equally conservative. 

3.     Therefore Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of knowledge.