The debate between Rationalism and Empiricism is a discrepancy between the origin of where and how our ideas and knowledge derive from. My side on this debate is that rationalism makes more sense than empiricism does and there are some ideas that empiricism can not explain which makes the theory invalid. The reason I chose rationalism is because I believe there are a few ideas that empiricism can not explain and I believe these ideas are not learned from experience. Empiricism states that all ideas are learned from experience, no exceptions. Regardless of one's belief in god, the idea of god simply can't be a learned idea. No one has ever experienced god, yet people still believe in him...sometimes to an extreme. Another idea that can't be learned from experience is the idea of shape, or substance. One can not learn what shape is, or what substance is...there are different types of shapes and substances; but the idea of shape and substance can not be learned from experience. This idea of shape and substance is very similar to Descartes idea of extension. Extension is essentially understanding something takes up space, or the property of existing in more than one dimension. This can not be learned from experience, we can't experience the idea of something taking up space; it's something that is just known. From birth one is able to understand, regardless of natural born intelligence at the time that something takes up space, it simply can't be taught or learned from experience. Another innate idea that can't be explained by empiricism is time. The idea of "time" is just something we are born with, we don't have to learn from experience what time is...time is just an idea that we know occurs. Without even knowing what time is or the definition of time, we understand the idea of it. Throughout our life we learn how to tell time through clocks, but the basic idea of time has to be innate because without clocks, we wouldn't need to know what time it is, we just know that the day changes, it gets darker at a certain point and we put a definition on it called "time" and added a system to measure it. Clocks exist, "time" doesn't exist, but the idea of it does.
Explanatory breadth - Rationalism explains the theory of ideas more thoroughly, although empiricism does explain the theory of the majority of ideas, it fails to explain ideas that can't be learned through experience. Empiricism simply does not explain the idea of god or godly figure, time, shapes/substance and the idea of extension. Whereas rationalism has an explanation as to where these ideas come from. They can only be explained through the concept of innate ideas.
Explanatory Depth - Rationalism goes more in-depth than empiricism because rationalism not only includes ideas that are innate, but ideas that are also learned from experience. Empiricism simply says that all ideas are learned from experience. Rationalists explanations are more detailed because they not only explain how ideas are learned from experience, they explain that a certain amount of ideas are innate and how those certain few ideas simply can't be learned from experience.
Simplicity - Empiricism is more simple and has fewer parts due to the fact that it believes ideas derive only from experience. Rationalism is not as simple due to the fact that it not only includes ideas that derive from experience, but ideas that can't be explained through experience alone; i.e innate ideas. What makes rationalism more complex is the concept of innate ideas, empiricism states that all ideas are learned from experience and stops at that; rationalists agree with the fact that most ideas are learned from experience but that there are a certain amount of ideas that can't be explained from experience.
Conservatism - both theories are equally accepted in today's society, I believe good points could be argued for both empiricism and rationalism. The theories are respected in different philosopher's and could create a good debate whether which theory is more plausible.
1. Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations for the origin of ideas.
2. Rationalism has more explanatory breadth and explanatory depth but Empiricism has more simplicity.
3. Therefore, Rationalism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.
I think you have a very strong argument, but God might be considered not to be an idea, but a realistic being to some. And even though you say God can't be an "idea" learned, it is the experiences that people go through that cause them to believe in God. To believe in something you don't have to experience it, you can, but it is not necessary. Other than that you have a very strong argument.
ReplyDeleteCory,
ReplyDeleteLet me start by applauding your bravery for defending such an abstract argument. You make several good points about ideas which are seemingly innate; ideas which we cannot learn, but rather, are programmed into our DNA. However, I found your examples to be flawed. Your first claim regarding the innate understanding of 'volume' assumes that all humans, even infants, understand that there is space in the world that can either be occupied by something or nothing. I do not believe that this is the case. Infants, it would seem, do not understand the spatial complexities of the world until they have held things in their hands, and otherwise experimented with various objects. So while this is certainly one of the first understandings a child reaches, it is by no means innate. You go on to argue the idea of 'time' as an innate idea, but this too is a human construct which we are not born with. Time is merely a name given to the linear series of events in our lives. One thing follows another and another, and it is this characteristic of reality which gave us time. Were we born into a world where all things happened at once, we would have no concept of this time, and we cannot, therefore call it an innate idea.