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.