Rationalism and Empiricism

     There are two different theories of where our ideas take place. One theory is Rationalism. Rationalism is that some of our knowledge is innate and we have had them since we were born. The second theory is Empiricism, which states that all our ideas come from experiences and no ideas are innate. The theory i believe in is that we all our ideas come from experiences. I picked this side of the debate because i believe that when your born most of the things you know are instincts and as time goes on and your learning and experiences new things some of things from when your born disappear somewhere in your mind. Most of the things we know come from experiences. For example, our knowledge of the communication. We learn that from experience. Communication was our way for everyone to understand one another and really get people get there point across for when it comes to someone in need or just to not feel alone.
       Descartes has his own example, the piece of wax. The piece of wax is hard, cold, and can be handled easily. As the place the wax next to a fire it begins to melt. it begins to change. the shape, the size, its not hard and its not cold. yet its still the same wax. Descartes states that if our ideas were innate, we wouldn't know that the wax after it melts is the same was. you would learn from experiences. Placing the wax in the fire and watching the change is showing you that the two are the same.

Explanatory breadth – Empiricism explain the origin of more ideas than Rationalism. Empiricism is all our ideas come from experiences which covers almost all the knowledge we know, while Rationalism is some of the knowledge that innate which couldn't be very much knowledge due to the fact after your born most of the knowledge you innate are instincts and emotions.

Explanatory depth – Empiricism has to do with things you learn from experiences and it expands over time and all our knowledge has to do with things to experiences. Empiricism also has more evidences when it comes to it knowledge unlike rationalism which can only be explained as they are innate.

 Simplicity – Rationalism has fewer parts than Empiricism. Rationalism explains only some ideas compared to Empiricism which has way more parts including experiences, thoughts, impressions, etc.

Conservatism – both rationalism and empiricism are both very relevant theories. Some people believe in rationalism and others believe in empiricism.

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

2. Empiricism has much more explanatory depth, explanatory breadth whereas Rationalism has a more simplicity and both are conservatism

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

Rationalism and Empiricism

The debate of where our thoughts and ideas derive from can be categorized into 2 opinions; Empiricism, the idea that all the knowledge we have is gain through experience and Rationalism, the idea that some bits of knowledge are innate or we have them since birth.  My opinion on this matter is that our knowledge is gained through experience, in other words I side with Empiricism.  In order to prove my thought I will attempt to refute Descartes wax candle example.  In this example Descartes argues that there is no way we can know that a wax candle melting into a puddle of wax can be the same thing unless we innately know it. We know that they are the same material from the experience of watching it melt in the fire.  We see as the solid candle slowly melts away and forms a puddle of wax, there would be no way that we can tall a puddle of wax is the same thing as a candle if we have not yet experienced a candle melting.  If you presented a puddle of wax and a candle to some person who has not seen either in their life there would be no way the could come to the conclusion they are the same item.  Where as if you melted it in front of them they would have a much better understanding and could tell they are the same thing.
          Empiricism also is the stronger of the 2 ideas when compare the 2 ideas:

Explanatory Breath: this category is to see which option explained the origin of more ideas. And in the case of Rationalism v.s Empiricism, Empiricism is better at explaining the origins of more knowledge than Rationalism does.  Empiricism says that all ideas come from experience this covers literally all sources of knowledge. Where Rationalism says some are innate and others are from experience,  its very vague and doesn't explain the which they are or how we know.

Explanatory Depth: this is how well an argument explains certain sources better. And in this case they both aren't very good at explaining certain forms of knowledge, but i believe Empiricism does a better job at explaining its source better because at least it explains one source where as Rationalism does not.    

Simplicity: this is how simple the argument is, the less assumptions are made the simpler the argument.  In this facet empiricism is the simplest argument it states all knowledge comes fromantic experience while rationalism says some are innate, but we don't know which ones they are and how you find them.

Conservatism: this is how well this argument fits with the societies current beliectves. And in this category it is a wash both of the views are accepted in today's society.

1. Empiricism and Rationalism and the two most plausible theories to explain the origin of knowledge
2. Empiricism has much more explanatory depth, explanatory breath and simplicity while they both are pretty conservative
3. Therefore empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of knowledge

Rationalism and Empiricism

            In order to understand the anciently debated issue on the origin of ideas one must first recognize the two theories of rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists argue that only experience, sensory information sent to the brain, is the ultimate source of our ideas. Adversely, rationalists argue that while experience is a prominent component, they believe some ideas are innate (that some are genetic predispositions).

           Given this is a debatable issue I side with the idea that offers the most plausible explanation, and that I believe to be is Empiricism. Empiricists argue that the ultimate source of human knowledge is experience. John Locke (a famous empiricist) claims that the perception of raw sensory data triggers a process that in turn leads to every one of our beliefs. When analyzed in depth, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint one idea that did not result from an experience. It was by some sort of sensory data-hear, see, smell, taste, or touch-that triggered that belief. In contrast, another group of philosophers offer a multifaceted account of human thoughts. These are rationalists whom (again) argue some ideas are innate. Plato, for example, believed that we are born with prior knowledge of certain forms like mathematical concepts (things equal each other, smallness and largeness, etc.), beauty, virtue, and even color. Descartes in Meditations believes the idea of infinity and God, are innate, as well the knowledge that we exist.  Though these rationalists have certainly made a point, there is one flaw that must be pointed out. If rationalists claim so full-heartedly that innate ideas give us fundamental truths about reality, why is it that they themselves cannot even agree? Plato believes in innate knowledge of Forms and Descartes disagrees, but believes in the innate knowledge of God and a soul. How could they waver upon this subject if it is supposedly fundamental knowledge? Furthermore, rationalists use “the color example” in order to support their claim but, again, it does not follow. When a large array of shades of blue are lined in front of a person who is very “color oriented”, and is then asked to name a shade in between two types of blue, the very “color orientated” person can do it. The rationalists would say that he “created” the color in his mind without prior experience. However if one was to be born blind they would never know what the color blue looks like. Empiricists would persist that the “color oriented” person simply combined different shades, from already pre-existing shades of blue that he had prior knowledge of, in order to create that supposedly “new” shade.

            Lastly to additionally support the empiricist claim one must take into account Descartes’  “Wax Argument”. Here Descartes attempts to explain that we know the mind better than sensory derived experiences (empiricism). When he picks up the wax he notices it has a hard sound when struck, a specific color, taste, feel, and scent. However when held close to a fire all of those things change. So Descartes wonders what characteristics the wax actually has. He answers flexibility, extension and being moveable. When reflecting upon extension (and flexibility) he realizes that the wax has a different volume when melted, boiled, and frozen, etc. So his mind could conceive infinite possibilities of the volume of the wax. His imagination though is not able to perceive infinity. This is only able to be clear when it is carefully thought upon.    So he goes on to say that one may know more about the wax through the thought process of learning and not so much as the use of senses. A criticism to this however is that for one to describe an object they must use their senses in order to truly understand it, to be truly certain. So the Descartes did not fully explain why the mind is better than the body.

Explanatory breadth Simply empiricism has more explanatory breadth because it covers that “all” ideas are formed through experience. Rationalism only accounts for specific origin of ideas (i.e. the idea of God, the ideas of Mathematics, moral concepts of beauty and virtue, etc.) Empiricism allows for an explanation of every idea.

Explanatory depth In all actuality Rationalism has greater explanatory depth, especially when addressing certain ideas. This is not necessarily a good thing since it has to keep explaining on top of explaining in order for the idea to make sense. Empiricism fully explains where certain concepts come from, and it takes much less depth than it does with Rationalism. Rationalism fails to address one specific fundamental truth of reality. Several ideas are out there that do not correlate. Also for example Rationalism needs long explanations like the wax or the color argument in order to make a point.

Simplicity Empiricism has greater simplicity where as Rationalism is more of a complicated explanation. You must take into account three theories alone in order to even consider yourself a rationalist (induction/ deduction thesis, innate knowledge thesis, or the innate concept thesis).

Conservatism Although it is still a widely debated issue, empiricism is the most excepted theory out of the two. Also most of modern science is based off of empiricism, much more practical than its overly skeptical counterpart.

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

2. Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, simplicity and conservatism, whereas Rationalism has more explanatory depth.

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

Resilience

Resilience

This virtue is the ability or willingness to recover from situations or events that change one's original state.  Unlike other virtues we discussed, resilience comes into play after someone has been knocked down.  Being resilient means that no matter what obstacles hinder your progress, theres always a way to get back up and surpass them.

I believe this is a virtue because everyone, at one point or another, gets disappointed or let down; what sets resilient people apart is their ability to get right back up after this has happened and find a good in it, or find a way to make it go as planned.  For example, Thomas Edison didn't make a light bulb on his first attempt.  He said "I didn't fail. I found out 2,000 ways how not to make a light bulb; I only needed to find one way to make it work."  People who lack this virtue give up, metaphorically, after the first few attempts at making that light bulb work.  Those who are resilient, like Edison, keep going until they achieve their goal, despite setbacks.  Another reason resilience is such a virtue is because all too often we hear our elders say how things would be different if they hadn't given up.  I hope to live my life and be able to look back without any regrets; to be able to say I didn't give up when they was a chance to make something turn out better.

Barbara
1. All determined people are virtuous.
2. All resilient people are determined.
3. Therefore, all resilient people are virtuous.

Integrity

Integrity- The Quality of being honest, truthful, and having a strong moral principle
   
            Having the virtue of integrity is a quality that relates to always being honest, and doing the correct thing in situations. A strong moral principle is a key part of integrity in the fact that supporting your good morals and all things that follow would make someone have integrity. Having integrity can be a big component in life on the relationships with others and your ability to communicate. Being dishonest and lying would be an example of a person who does not have integrity. A person who has integrity is able to make relationships with honesty.
            Integrity is a virtue because it allows people to be honest with one another and applies to following good morals. Someone who has integrity will be able to live a good honest life that follows guidelines and does not break rules.

Barbara arguement-

1. Someone who has integrity is virtuous 
2. Someone who is always honest has integrity
3. Therefore, someone who is always honest has integrity

Patience

                                                 Patience
       Ever hear of the age old saying patience is a virtue? Or how about: all good things come to those who wait? A virtue, specifically defined by Socrates, is an excellent character trait everyone should strive to achieve. This moral foundation of self-control and tolerance is vital to the human character. Without it life is rushed, forced, unrestrained. Taking your time to learn, feel, and appreciate is beyond doubt a fantastic way to lead life.
      In order to distinguish it from others, patience can be defined as: a virtue (its overall genus) that implies one has the ability to remain calm when faced with annoying, angry, or suffering situations (its differentia).
      Firstly it is inarguable that everyone requires self-control in their life. It is also something everyone works to achieve. Self-control is a product of patience. Without it people lack structure. For example, try becoming healthier as a person: eating healthy, exercising more often, reducing stress, etc. People who have never tried to do so cannot possibly realize the massive amounts of inner strength that comes with it! Telling yourself "no" to some of your favorite foods, getting up in the morning to exercise, taking that deep breath when you are angry-it all comes from deep within you. That inner strength and quiet confidence can be applied to almost all situations in everyday life. Think of getting that big project done, think of handling your future children, and even think of waiting in line! Yes, it is hard and it takes practice but it is insurmountably rewarding. Learning to wait and to just live is priceless. As all virtues are.
           Furthermore, patience is an "excellent" trait. When one rushes through life it is as good as not living. One should take that moment to watch the sunset and listen to the music. Life should not be about getting from point A to point B as quick and correct as possible, you need patience to accept life as how it is with all the road bumps in between. When you accept life for how it is, only then can one be truly at peace, with themselves and with the world.
       So it is almost perfect at how well patience fits within Socrates definition of a virtue. Not only is patience an "excellent" trait characterized by inner strength, peace, and tolerance but it is something everyone works to achieve-from not screaming while you are in that huge line at the store-to enjoying life and watching things work out. Patience is applicable at almost any time.
 Barbara Argument:
 1. All  inner strengthening traits are virtuous.
 2. All patient acts are inner strengthening traits.
 3.Therefore all patient acts are virtuous.

Tolerance

Virtue: Tolerance is a virtue that allows oneself to not force ones opinions on another.

            Tolerance is a different virtue because it is the different from stubbornness because that implies that one doesn’t consider the opinions of the other one.  Otherwise, tolerance is the openness to let a person express their opinions, not necessarily agreeing with it or disagreeing with it.  In fact , it is not the virtue of being devoted because it does not mean discouraging the others from having their own opinions. One word similar is considerate but that doesn’t entail a neutral reaction.

1. All people who are tolerant allow other peoples opinions.

2.People who are not do not allow ones opinions and are not fair.

3. Fair humans are tolerant.

1. Not all humans are tolerant.

2 Tolerant humans do not judge.

3. All people who are not tolerant judge.