In the debate between rationalism
and empiricism, Empiricists believe that knowledge comes from experience. While
rationalist believe knowledge is stemmed from innate nature and experience. Rationalist claims that we are born with
knowledge and find answer to questions by thinking logically. Empiricist
support the idea of a posteriori which means knowledge that comes after
experience or dependent on experience. I definitely agree with the empiricists
theories. John Locke, an empiricist said that when we were all born our
minds were blank slates and over our lifetime, our many experiences were
painted onto our minds creating knowledge. Therefore, when we were born we
couldn't have had any innate experiences. Almost everyone learns from
observation and experiment, actually witnessing things is what helps us to gain
knowledge. I believe this theory is more plausible than the rationalism theory.
Descartes’
wax theory was a great example of empiricism. He showed us that something can
go through radical changes but it’s actually still the same object. At first
the wax was solid and then when it was put near fire the wax melted. This is
showing us that because we have all witnessed substance change, we already have
the prior knowledge to know that just because the wax’s physical state has
changed, it is still the same wax. And obviously if you've never been able to
witness an object change its state due to temperature then you wouldn't have
the knowledge to know that it was the same wax.
Explanatory breadth: Empiricism explains
that our ideas come from experiences we have had, not from innate experience.
Rationalism doesn't explain how our ideas and knowledge could possibly come
from innate ideas. We have to experience things to learn, knowledge won’t just
appear in our brains.
Explanatory
depth: Rationalism failed to
explain how when you’re born your mind could already have ideas and knowledge
inside. Anyone could explain the experience they had during their life and how
it helped them to gain knowledge on something.
Simplicity: Empiricism is way simpler because it states
that knowledge comes from experience which is way easier to explain other than
rationalism which would definitely be difficult to prove and would cause many
questions.
Conservatism: Both ideas are still being discussed in today’s
society. I don’t think one theory is more consistent than the other but I do
believe that empiricism would be easier to prove. But I don’t think you can say
which is more conservative.
- Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
- Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, simplicity, and conservatism whereas rationalism has a little more explanatory depth.
- Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.
I disagree with when you use the example that since birth we have blank slates because, even though we are born without knowledge of the world itself, babies are able to hear their mother's voices and sense things around them, they have knowledge of their own world in their womb but other than that they don't. So your statement on babies having blank slates isn't very true, and I know this from taking a child development class, so your statement isn't entirely true.
ReplyDelete