The Causes of Human Actions

The free will debate presents disagreements between what the ultimate cause of human actions is.  One theory is in the ideals of determinists, they claim that all of our actions are generated or caused by the external environment or how an individual was raised.  The other theory is presented by libertarians, they claim that some of our actions are generated by “spontaneous free will” and some are generated by external causes. I find that the libertarian argument is more plausible for many reasons, and I also follow their views.

A.)  Libertarianism explains more types of human behavior than determinism.  As opposed to libertarianism, determinism does not explain multiple variables that contribute to discovering what the ultimate cause of human actions are.  I believe that libertarianism possesses more explanatory breadth for this reason since it is capable of explaining more human behaviors than determinism.

B.)  Libertarianism also explains more causes of human behavior than determinism.  This is because determinism simply discusses that all actions are caused by the external environment or how a person was brought up.  Following this, we can see that there is more explanatory depth to be found in libertarianism because it utilizes both free will, and external factors in its explanation of the ultimate cause of human actions.  In addition to these ideas, libertarianism also addresses the ultimate question with a bigger base or source, as it supports both free will and also the shaping from external factors.

C.)  Simplicity is a very important topic in this argument between theories.  As determinism presents its case as all actions being caused by external environments or how a person was raised we can see a significant amount of extra theorizing within itself. In one case we can recognize that, as determinism is based on these variables, it can be understood that as people are all from different upbringings there would be no real way to interpret causes of everyone based on such a specific basis.  As libertarians explain though, human actions are either caused by external environments and also free will.  This provides a more simple theory to understand.

D.)  Both theories of libertarianism, and determinism share the same amount of conservatism.  This is because whether based off of individual based ideas, or religious influenced ideas, there is not a steady agreement on whether or not human actions are caused by free will and external factors, or just external factors.  Since this argument is so black and white, it can be easily stated and seen how both the theories of determinism and libertarianism are about the same in weight when it comes to conservatism.

Libertarianism and behaviorism are the most plausible explanations of the ultimate cause of human actions. Libertarianism has much more explanatory breadth, depth and simplicity, and both libertarianism and determinism share about the same amount of conservatism. Therefore, libertarianism is the most plausible explanation of the ultimate cause of human actions.

Empiricism and Rationalism

One big disagreement in Philosophy is where our thoughts truly come from. Rationalists claim that some knowledge and concepts are innate. They believe we are born with some knowledge and concept and the rest are from experience. On the other hand, empiricists state that everything is learned from experiences. They consider that we are born with a blank slate and we have to go out in the world to learn. In my opinion the origins of ideas come from empiricism.

Empiricist is more of a reasonable idea because I do not think we are born with some knowledge and concepts. In Meditations on First Philosophy: Second Meditation, Descartes explains the wax argument and that we come to know things through experiences with that certain object. It is stated that the solid wax melts into a liquid puddle. Rationalist may be able to know what the wax is through sense. Our innate can tell us what it is and that it has melted but nothing further from that. This example is derived from experience because our sense and emotions cannot give us enough evidence that that the liquid and solid are both forms of wax. During his example his stance on the wax argument was for the rationalist view. He never discovered it was from an empiricist point of view. The wax goes through a change and one would never realize this is true without experiencing it.

For explanatory breadth, it questions which theory explains the origin of ideas more than the other and which one fails to address it. Empiricism is better at clarifying the origins of knowledge more than Rationalism does. Empiricism is straight forward in their ideas. It covers all sources of knowledge by saying it comes from experience. This mean one needs to have practical contact and observe the world around them. However, rationalism seems to be very two sided and uncertain because they believe the origin of ideas come from innate and then experiences. Since they already have some innate knowledge they don’t need to put as much effort into their learning. Furthermore, it is unclear and confusing where innate knowledge comes from and how we receive it. With Empiricism humans are learning and growing everyday with experiences. 

The theory that explains the origin of certain ideas in greater detail is explanatory depth. Empiricism has greater detail on the origin of certain ideas, while rationalism struggles coming up with details. Empiricist can provide several helpful examples from their real life experiences. Empiricist can go into greater detail on a more personal level with their experiences. However, rationalist cannot explain where there innate knowledge came from because they only know that they were born with it. Rationalism has no detail on where their innate ideas come from. As an empiricist there is always more experiences to go through and more detail to explain them further.

Simplicity states that one theory has fewer parts or assumptions than the other, making it less likely to conceal hidden errors and that there is one theory, which is more complex. Empiricism is the simplest example with fewer assumptions than rationalism because they have concert ideas with their experiences and they are not using their imagination. Rationalist tend to use their imagination because they were never told where their innate ideas came from. This makes rationalism very complex since their knowledge comes from innate and experiences. Empiricism is very simple with their definition by saying all ideas come from experience. You will not find errors in empiricism because it comes from true present day experiences.

Conservatism explains that one theory is more consistent with our current, common sense beliefs than the other. Rationalism is more consistent now in our current beliefs because we are all expected to know certain things, as we get older. Some things shouldn’t have to be taught to us or learn by experience since they are so easy to obtain. In our society there is certain knowledge we should have attained without experience. Being born in the 21^st century, there is so much more knowledge than before, which we need to grasp without experiences.

1. Empiricist and Rationalist are the most plausible explanation of where ideas come from.

2. Empiricist has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas Rationalist has a little more explanatory breadth.

            3. Therefore, Empiricist is the best explanation of where ideas come from.

Rationalism and Empiricism

           

     The debate between rationalism and empiricism argues the issue as to whether or not knowledge is acquired from the senses. Empiricism is the claim that sense experience is the sole source of the formation of our ideas. Rationalists believe that ideas are innate and developed by reason alone.

     Empiricism is the more plausible of the two explanations. Empiricists believe that the best way to know something is to have experienced it. To learn about something by seeing, smelling, or tasting it. For example, a person cannot know what chocolate tastes like unless they eat some. They can be told that a piece of chocolate is sweet and creamy, but until it hits their taste buds they will never truly know the flavor.

    Descartes conveys that he is a rationalist through his wax analogy in “Meditations on First Philosophy”, yet he was unsuccessful in realizing that his wax example is actually in favor of empiricism. You are only able to understand that something can go through a radical change and remain the same through our experiences. He explains that we cannot understand that the wax is the same substance after it changes without watching for ourselves. We are not born with depth perception, we acquire it from our senses and experiences. Descartes goes on to say that we cannot fully explain the different formations of the wax without showing them. Once we watch the wax go from a solid form to a melted form, we can fully understand the changes.

   When addressing explanatory breadth, I believe that empiricism surpasses rationalism. The origin of most of our ideas is easier explained through experience. Rationalists are unable to explain the source of some ideas and where they came from. Empiricists look further into how the ideas came about.

     Again, I believe that empiricism outweighs rationalism. Empiricism does a lot better job of explaining explanatory depth. Empiricism also does a better job of explaining the origin of ideas in detail. Empiricism claims that our ideas come from our experiences. We must be able to connect our ideas with our senses, or we will never fully know them. It is easy to come up with examples and explanations for empiricism, but it becomes harder when trying to explain rationalism in detail. No one can know for sure if infants are born with certain ideas. This means that because empiricism allows us to learn experience, it is a lot easier to explain in more depth.

     Empiricism is the simplest theory to understand because it provides only one example as opposed to the two rationalism provides. It is difficult to clarify which ideas are innate and what makes these ideas innate. It is a lot easier to understand that ideas come from actually doing something rather than just being born with them. Rationalism seems to be based more on opinion than fact, making it a lot more complex than empiricism. We cannot assume that all babies are born knowing that strawberries are sweet or that ice cubes turn into liquid water.

    Conservatism is based on which theory has more current beliefs than the other. In this case I believe that rationalism is more current. Today, many are expected to be born with certain ideas and beliefs. We are expected to be born with certain ideas, and continue learning as we grow up.

1. Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
2. Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas rationalism has a little more conservatism.
3. Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of the Origin of Ideas.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Arguing for Empiricism

Empiricism and rationalism are the two main theories which try to explain where our ideas come from. The two theories conflict on whether humans have innate knowledge or not. Rationalists believe that humans have innate knowledge of fundamental ideas, where empiricists believe there is no such thing. Empiricism states that all ideas come from experience and no ideas are innate. Rationalism is defined as some fundamental ideas are innate. In my opinion, the most plausible is the theory of empiricism.

The theory of empiricism is able to explain the origin of more ideas than the theory of rationalism. This means empiricism has a better explanatory breadth. Rationalism can’t explain the ideas of seeing color or feeling roundness. For example, you can only come to the conclusion that something is red if you’ve experienced a red object before using your senses and determined that it matched. Also, after finding the answer to Molyneux’s Problem by doing experiments, it is impossible to distinguish the difference between a cube and a sphere if you haven’t experienced them before.

The detail in which empiricism goes into when explaining the origin of ideas is much greater than rationalism, this is called the explanatory depth. Empiricism explains the origin of ideas more completely. For example, math and science can be tested using experiments. The observations from the experiments come from using the senses and experiencing the experiment. Although math and science would still exist if we couldn’t sense it, our experiences with them can help us understand them in greater detail.

The simplicity of empiricism also makes it seem more plausible. All ideas come from experience and can only be separated or combined. Where rationalism states that it is true that we can come up with ideas through experience, but we are also are born with innate knowledge. Since rationalism contains one more piece in the theory and has more to it than empiricism, it is more complex. Empiricism makes fewer assumptions in the theory, so it is less likely to be able to find hidden errors in it.

Accepting the theory of empiricism is easier than rationalism because it agrees with with is previously thought. In other words, it’s a conservative theory. For example, even if you have a college degree you could lose the job to someone with more experience than you because it is the best way to learn. Being in the actual experience and using all five senses is the best way to learn because you absorb everything. Since you’ve done or been through the experience before you have more knowledge about that experience, so the more experience the better.

Rene Descartes’ example of wax remaining the same, but going through such radical changes can actually be derived from senses. If you do this experiment and see that the wax melts, then its easy to see it is not the same solid wax because it’s a melted version of it and until it gets cooler and hardens it is different than when it was solid. It help to describe or name the wax more carefully at first so i would be easier to see that is not the same. For example, calling it a solid piece of wax at first instead of more broadly just wax.

-Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of where our ideas originate from.

-Empiricism has more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, simplicity and conservatism.

-Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation of where our ideas originate from.

In conclusion, the most plausible theory for answering the question, "Where do our ideas originate from?" is the theory of empiricism. This is shown by using explanatory breadth and depth, its simplicity and the conservatism of the theory. Also by using the Inference to Best Explanation argument.

Rationalism v Empiricism

Rationalism and empiricism debates on the origin of our ideas. Empiricists argues that all ideas are dependent on human observation and experience while rationalists argue that there is a reason why every phenomenon or object exists, suggesting man did not create them. In other words, rationalists impair that we come up with some ideas. I support rationalists because this side of the debate is more plausible to me in the sense that general principles already existed prior to humans. As with empiricism, experience shows whether or not phenomenons repeat themselves supporting certain laws or the occurrence of the phenomenons are random.

For instance, gravity was not derived from experience. Gravity occurred on earth prior to human existence where an apple falls to the ground not because multiple humans observed so, but because of the law of gravity. With something more simple, like the existence of our organs, or maintaining our hygenes which preexisted prior to its discovery is another example. The concept of precipitation and other natural occurrences occurred before there was a name for it, the name of rain was derived through observance and experience but that does not mean rain was created by humans because they came up with a name for it. It was just a matter of time for humans to conduct experiments observing the repeated occurring phenomenons and applied  laws to them.

Explanatory Breadth: Rationalism explains the origin of ideas better than empiricism. Rationalists are intuitively strong on their focus on finding the already existing principles that men did not create such as rain or gravity. It is not proven by science that men created the existing principles but science does provide evidence on the observations of the recurring phenomenons being discovered which laws are applied to. Empiricists fail to address where the original principles came from. Discovering laws and concepts originate from experience, but prior to experience, those laws and concept already existed, they just needed a name. An unusual phenomena is recurring gravity: which did not exist due to multiple people observing the effect of an apple being “pulled” to the ground, but because gravity existed prior to its discovery.

Explanatory Depth:  Empiricism explains the concept of certain ideas better than rationalism due to the fact that an empiricist can provide evidence to support all the claims of existing things (concept of God’s existence, math) while a rationalist does not have much proof supporting their claims of people being born with innate ideas. As a rationalist would argue there is a God due to “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another...a first mover, put in motion by no other,” an empiricist would would oppose that claim saying if God’s existence is innate, then why don’t everyone believe in God (Aquinas: The Unmoved Mover). Or if the concept of math is innate, then why don’t we know the answers to the hard math problems?

Simplicity: Rationalism has fewer parts and assumptions than empiricism since it only supports general principles’ preexistence and contradicts the perception of empiricists. Since everyone’s perception of the world is different, not all can infer the same expressions, ideas, thoughts, surroundings, etc. For instance, people in the caribbean who have never left their island would not know what winter is like until the experienced it for themselves. Empiricism is more complex in the sense that relation of ideas are demonstratively certain that all our thoughts and ideas can be analyzed into simple ideas all originating from experience, showing that all our ideas derive from experience and observance that humans make.

Conservatism: The theory of rationalism is more current and consistent throughout the world than empiricism due to the fact that Christianity is a dominant religion and the original principle of God existed before humankind, causing the world to move. Rationalism is more consistent with God being the primary mover of Earth because whatever is in motion has to get put in motion by the primary mover, which we know as God.

Rationalism and empiricism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.

Rationalism has more exploratory breadth supporting its main point and conservatism, whereas empiricism a more depth proof of certain ideas.

Therefore, rationalism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

What makes humans think the way they think? Where do their ideas and thoughts originate from? This have been a common philosophical debate about whether our ideas are originated from rationalism or empiricism. Rationalism is the belief that some ideas are embedded in us from birth and the rest of our ideas come from experience. Rationalist believe that humans are born with some sort of knowledge and they gain more from future experiences. On the other hand, empiricist believe different. Empiricist believe that all ideas come from experience. They thrive on the theory that knowledge and ideas take time and experience to develop.

I personally agree with the rationalism theory. I feel that some things are just embedded in our DNA and the rest of things we pick up from experience. Take for example a newborn, some might say that they are not born with any type of knowledge or idea but actually they are. When a newborn is hungry or when they need to feel comfort from a parent, they cry. They create a type of mechanism that helps their needs get met. They were never taught this before coming into the world, it was something that’s innate to them. But as they become older and they experience different things they learn how to communicate their thoughts and ideas much more clearly. They will take from experiences to better the innate qualities that they do have.

A.      Rationalism has more explanatory breadth than empiricism because rationalism gives more ideas as to why humans think the way they think. You have more reason for why humans think the way they do.

B.      Rationalism has more explanatory depth than empiricism because there is more to this theory than empiricism. We get the idea that some of our knowledge comes from experience but we also get the fact that some are just innate to us. We get more detail.

C.      Empiricism is simpler than rationalism because empiricism is only proving one point, experience, while rationalism has two parts to prove/defend, which ideas are innate and which ones comes from experience. You will be less likely to find any hidden errors in empiricism because you can argue what experience did what but with rationalism you can’t always argue what’s innate or came naturally to a person.

D.      Empiricism is more conservative than rationalism because it has more facts to support and prove this theory. For example gravity, we can drop a pencil and prove that the reason why it fell was because of gravitational pull.

 

 

1.       Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations of the Origin of Ideas.

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

3.       Therefore, Rationalism is the best explanation of the Origin of Ideas.

Rationalism vs Empiricism

The debate between rationalism and empiricism is that how independently we are with knowledge. Rationalism think we have some of our ideas but then most comes after more experience, when empiricism think  all of the ideas originate from experience.  I feel that rationalism is more  agreeable because we learn from experiences and most ideas come from past experience.  An idea that the rationalism thought that we had is prior knowledge.  To think that when we are born, we are born with some kind of knowledge of what is going on in the world.

    

    Explanatory breath:  Rationalism has more of an explanatory breadth than empiricism because most of our ideas come from experience. For example, people do not just wake up one day and say I’m going to be a millionaire by doing nothing, they have to face experience to gather new ideas from that experience to create something bigger and better.  You can great an idea from another idea but that doesn’t come from your own experience. You can’t really take another persons idea and turn it into yours.  Empiricism can’t really explain better than rationalism, because empiricism is basically our imagination, we jut think of things, but we don’t really experience them. 

  Explanatory Depth :  Empiricism has more depth that rationalism, of where and how experience is learned.  Rationalism states that you are born with knowledge with some ideas innate.  For example when you were a child , you had  don’t now anything or know that anything is bad , so when you do something, you can process what just happened, to now not to do it again.

   Simplicity : Rationalism provides more simplicity than empiricism, because rationalism believes that when we are born we have some knowledge, but how do they know that even born child has knowledge.  But empiricism believes everything is learned from experience, which in some cases it is but in others we just now because it is common sense.  When we are born we save memory that are innate.

  Conservatism : Empiricism is more consistent with out theory because we do learn from experience. For example Steve Job was denied multiplied times before making Mac , michael Jordan was also denied; they learned from their mistakes to make a new ideas come true. It would have never happened, if their past experience didn’t make them better thinkers.

Rationalism and Empiricism are most plausible explanation of where our ideas come from.

 Rationalism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity , wheares Empiricism

   has more explanatory depth.

Therefore, Rationalism is the best explanation of  where our ideas come from.