The debate between empiricists and
rationalists continues today as it has done so for many years. There is no
clear answer for either side and picking one is highly opinionated. On one side
you have the rationalists who believe some ideas are innate and the rest come
from experience. This means that when we are born there are certain ideas,
theories that are programmed into our thinking and we grow up knowing from no
known source. Empiricists who I agree with argue that everything we do and know
is based off experience. Empiricism
seems like a more viable reasoning just because it is hard to believe that when
we are born we can know certain things without deducing them from experience.
Now being an empiricist how can I derive that object A is still object A even
after it goes through radical changes? It is rather quite simple to be honest.
To use the wax as an example I know it is still the wax even after being heated
because of previous experience. The experience can be of quite many things. For
example one winter I could have noticed that my glass of water when left
outside had turned to ice. I still knew it was my glass of water but just
turned solid because of the cold. I knew
it turned solid because of the cold because from experience I know things tend
to harden in the cold.
In terms of the explanatory breadth
the empiricist theory explains the origin of a lot more ideas than the
rationalist theory because it states that all ideas come from experience. As rationalism states that some ideas are
innate and the rest come from experience it is possible to argue that they both
address the same amount of idea origins.
However this is only true if some ideas are innate which I disagree
with.
In terms of explanatory depth
empiricism definitely has the upper hand.
As all the ideas come from experience it is possible to describe them in
extensive detail because it happened firsthand. One can describe the
intellectual process that occurred during the forming of the idea while one has
an “innate” idea can not because it simply is just there.
Empiricism also has greater level
of simplicity. One does not simply assume ideas because they are innate but
rather learn all of them from experience.
Rationalism is more complex because since certain ideas are innate explaining
them may prove to be difficult since the ideas were drawn from no where. It’s
like giving someone an answer to a problem and someone asking them how they got
the answer.
Empiricism is more consistent in
terms of conservatism because it goes along with the idea that seeing is
believing which is a current belief. The
idea of firsthand experience is also one of the current ideas it is consistent
with. Empiricism is consistent with these two ideas because they both state
that you believe or know something from being there and experiencing it
yourself.
1.
Empiricism and Rationalism are the most
plausible explanations of where our ideas come from.
2.
Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and
simplicity, whereas rationalism may have an equal amount of explanatory breadth
if a key idea of it were true.
3.
Therefore,
Empiricism is the best explanation of where our ideas come from.
When it comes to explanatory breath, i think that a better explanation for it would be rationalism. Rationalism explains the point from two ways instead of the one from empiricism. Rationalism thinks that ideas come from experience, and from natural being, however empiricism just addresses one of the two point. Therefore when talking about explanatory breadth rationalism explains it more, or at least in more detail.
ReplyDelete