When discussing The Origin of Ideas, the debate of rationalism and empiricism comes to mind.
A rationalist believes that thoughts and ideas are the foundations of knowledge. An empiricist believes that the mind is a blank slate and relies on observation and experience to form knowledge. These are two contrasting views that come from philosophers like David Hume and John Locke who are on the supporting end of empiricism and Descartes who contradicts his view of rationalism with arguments of empiricism.
In my opinion the idea of Empiricism seems to be the most plausible. Take for example Descartes' wax example: As we view the wax at a solid state we can smell its scent, there is color and to the touch it is hard. When the wax melts it is perceived by the senses simply as "changing" but the wax seen by the mind is still wax. It changes according to certain conditions, and allows for thoughts, principles, ideas which can be separated from those we create with our external senses.
Explanatory breadth - The origin of ideas asks questions like "where do ideas come from?" and "what sparks human creativity?" Empiricism best answers these questions by giving examples of things like dreaming that everyone can relate to with examples that are matters of fact. John Locke's simple and complex ideas best describe the origin of more ideas. Empiricists say that we base our knowledge of complex ideas on our experience with simpler ideas like shape and color, which can be supported with ideas like the centaur. Rationalists depend on their own reasons and thoughts as evidence to support their claim, and usually the evidence cannot be tested.
Explanatory depth - Rationalists have been wrong about their innate knowledge which makes up half of their argument and create a statement that empiricists explain the origin of certain ideas in greater detail. Empiricism have more support for their ideas with arguments like "if someone has never experienced a certain type of impression, they lack the corresponding idea." Like indirect evidence, if we aren't at the scene of an incident we cannot trust that the news is telling the whole truth. There is no justification for lack of knowledge.
Simplicity - Rationalism is simpler and has fewer assumptions than empiricism. Descartes believes that a person can be fooled by his senses. Many variables affect how one sees an event, like heat (i.e Mirage). People experience the same events very differently. Therefore, the senses are not to be trusted.
Hume thought that all ideas come from outward impressions that are ideas gathered through sensory experience, and inward impressions that are built on previous experience, that allow us to have ideas of things we have not/could not experience (i.e imagination). Hume addresses two places that ideas come from which makes his argument more complex.
Conservatism- The argument that toddlers use language in ways that they are not taught, addresses how rationalism is still supported by people today. They begin to understand grammatical rules before they even know what a noun or a verb is.Small children forming original sentences from words that they haven’t heard and putting them together precisely is an example of ideas that are naturally, genetically coded or innate.
As well as rationalism, empiricism is also still popular today if not more. Much of science is founded on empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it. If we base our conclusions about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see our mistakes.
Both growth and development as well as advancing sciences are important which makes rationalism and empiricism equally conservative.
- Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations of The Origin of Ideas
2. Empiricism has a little more explanatory breadth and depth. Rationalism and Empiricism are equally conservative.
3. Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of The Origin of Ideas
I definitely agree that Empiricism is better for explaining the origin of thought. However, your wax example should take into account that we need experience to understand that a melted piece of wax and a hard piece of wax are the same thing. Also, to better support the idea of Empiricism, you should use more examples than just Descartes' wax example.
ReplyDelete