Empiricism vs. Rationalism: Where Our Ideas Originate

           A common philosophical debate is the question of whether or not our ideas come from empiricism or rationalism, or simply stated, the origin of ideas. Individuals who agree with empiricism state that no ideas are innate because all of our ideas come from our experiences. Whereas rationalists believe that some of our ideas are innate, or more specifically, our foundational ideas are innate; however, most of our ideas come from our experiences because only a small handful are actually ones that we are truly born with.

I personally tend to side more towards the concept of empiricism. I believe it is unreasonable to believe that human beings are born with some form of knowledge, even though they have had no life experiences yet. However, I do believe we are born with emotions and instincts; those do not fall under the category of ideas and thus, do not pertain to this specific debate. Human beings gain knowledge from experience, and more specifically, trial-and-error because we learn most profoundly through our mistakes.

Descartes’ wax example is a perfect illustration for the empiricism versus rationalism debate. The wax example Descartes presents shows how something can go through radical changes yet remain the same thing, because the wax went from being a solid to a liquid in the presence of heat from a fire. This belief can be derived from experience because we have all seen a substance change states. I am positive that we have all seen our ice melt in our drinks on a hot summer day, and the snow on the ground melt when springtime arrives. However, even though these substances have changed states by melting and becoming a liquid, we are not doubtful on whether or not it is the same ice. We know these things occur, substances changing states yet remaining the same thing, because we have each witnessed it many times with our own eyes. It is unreasonable to say that if you have never seen wax melt when subjected to heat, you would automatically know that it is the same wax in both states. Therefore, if an individual has ever witnessed wax melt, they would be unclear as to whether or not it is the same wax because we learn through experience.

In regards to explanatory breadth, I believe that the origin of most of our ideas fall under our experiences; therefore, empiricism outweighs rationalism. It is more accurate to say that the majority of our knowledge comes from experience. Even if I am incorrect in siding with empiricism in this debate, most of the ideas human beings have, come from learning from our life experiences, which is something even rationalists believe in. Rationalists believe that only a few of our current beliefs are innate because most of our ideas are learned through experience. Therefore, the origin of more ideas is from our experiences, rather than our innate beliefs, if we have even any. Rationalism fails to address where most of our ideas actually come from. We learn topics such as mathematics, science, literature, history, and philosophy all through experience; we are not simply born knowing that 1 plus 1 equals 2, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, those things must be learned. Therefore, rationalism fails to explain where much of our core knowledge originates and empiricism does a better job at doing so.

In terms of explanatory depth, empiricism explains the origin of certain ideas in greater detail than rationalism does. Rationalism, in my opinion, is very vague in that it does not state how these innate beliefs come to be and where exactly we learn them. How are we born, with no life experiences under our belt, already having knowledge, beliefs, and ideas about the world? On the other hand, empiricism is very clear-cut and black-and-white per say. It states that none of our ideas are innate, and all of our ideas come from experience. There are no unanswered questions with empiricism, like there is with rationalism. For example, many rationalists claim that we’re born with much of our language structure. If this were to be true, where does this knowledge come from, and how exactly did we learn it? As you can see, rationalism is very grey-scale as there are many unanswered questions. If we wanted to, we are able to go further into depth with the concept of empiricism by analyzing how we gain knowledge from our experiences, as well as what specific experiences we learn the most from. For example, many people claim that we learn from our past experiences in which we believe were mistakes; or rather, we learn from trial and error. If we were to get a question wrong on our biology test, for instance, we will be more apt to remember this piece of knowledge in the future because we made a mistake and human beings learn from trial and error.

The concept of empiricism holds much more simplicity than rationalism does. Rationalism is very complex and ‘grey-scale’ in that some of our ideas are innate, and some are learned throughout our life experiences. The question that arises with rationalism is: which ideas are innate and which are learned through experience, and are we even capable of determining this? I believe that individuals who side with rationalism each have their own beliefs as to what ideas are innate and what ideas are learned; however, there is no exact answer to the question, making rationalism less simplistic. It is very unclear if there even is an answer to this complex question about what specific knowledge we are born with, making rationalism confusing and misleading. Empiricism, on the other hand, has a lot less room for error. Since we can assume, under the rules of empiricism, that every bit of knowledge we have, from math and science to philosophy, is learned through experience, it is less likely that there will be concealed errors.

Finally, when it comes down to conservatism, I do believe that empiricism outweighs rationalism yet again. I think it is safe to say that everyone believes that human beings are born with certain instincts, feelings, emotions, and maybe even morals, but not actual knowledge. Basic knowledge and beliefs about the world around us has to be learned throughout the lifetime, and I think most people will agree. It is irrational to say that a child with zero life experience, or time in school knows any basic mathematics, science, philosophy, or any other area of expertise. That kind of knowledge must be learned through life experiences and time in school. We have already determined that empiricism is a lot simpler, making it easier for individuals to understand. It is common sense to believe that an infant with no life experiences will need to gain experiences, in order to ultimately gain knowledge. Therefore, the majority of our society believes that we gain knowledge, such as the laws of physics, through our life experiences.

For various reasons, empiricism seems more believable than rationalism in the debate over where our knowledge originates. I believe it is confusing, misleading and incorrect to say that human beings are born with innate knowledge about the world, even when they have no life experiences, because knowledge ultimately comes from experience. 

1. Empiricism and rationalism are both plausible explanations for where our ideas come from.

2.  Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, simplicity, and conservatism, than rationalism does.

3. Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation for where our ideas originate.