In Modern Philosophy there are two theories that state our origin of ideas. Firstly, we have rationalism which says that some ideas are innate from birth while the rest of ideas come from experience while Empiricism states that all ideas come from experience. In this debate between the two theories I choose Empiricism. In Descartes Second Meditation he explains an example about wax and how it goes through physical change, the first state being solid and the second state being a liquid. Without experience he wouldn't have known that it is the same wax but it just changed its "body". Another example would be for whoever discovered that tadpoles evolved into frogs. They had to watch the tadpole mature and evolve into a frog through their own experience.
Explanatory breadth: Empiricism explains the origin of ideas better than Rationalism because it states that all ideas come from experience while Rationalism does not state which ideas are innate.
Explanatory depth: Empiricism explains its sources better by providing evidence and experience through discoveries of knowledge throughout history while Rationalism just states some ideas are innate while having no evidence for it.
Simplicity: Empiricism is much more simpler because it states that all ideas come from experience while Rationalism says that not only are some ideas innate but the rest of ideas come from experience. Also Rationalism just assumes that ideas are innate and has more room for its argument to crumble.
Conservatism: I would have to say that it depends on the crowd of people you are talking to about this so I say it is equal in this category.
- Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of knowledge.
- Empiricism has more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth and simplicity while Empiricism and Rationalism are equally matched in conservatism.
- Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment