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.