...two parties argue a lot on the questions like: What is the ultimate source of knowledge? Or: How do we gain knowledge? They are rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism states that we depend on our reason capacities to gain real knowledge, which is inborn, independent and could not be determined by human beings. The most famous rationalist, Plato, contributes to metaphysics and epistemology. He explains his theory by using the example prisoners in a cave. The conclusion is that cognition comes from the appearance of the world not the reality. According to Plato, there exist two worlds: the real world and a supernatural realm which contains the eternal and perfect Forms. Everything we get from the real world is a reflection of the supernatural hence the essence is invisible. Reason is the only way in which we get the essence of appearance. Based on Plato’s metaphysics, Parmenides and Heraclites assert diverse opinions. Parmenides assumes that being is real and change is the characteristic of being while Heraclites considers change is real while being is not. Plato also holds the view that human beings are born with knowledge, and the immortal soul belongs to the supernatural. That we use our reasoning capacities to recover from the knowledge known before is called learning-by-recollection. On the other hand, there exists empiricism, represented by Aristotle who states that the source of knowledge is not reason but sensory experience. He disagrees with Plato’s two-worlds theory...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...To what extent have Conservatives preferred pragmatism and empiricism to political principles? To fully understand and explore the question the meaning of empiricism and pragmatism must be identified. In relation to politics empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is based on experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Political pragmatism links to the belief that politics should be guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory or ideology. It is clear both words have a very similar meaning and illustrate that the conservatives don’t operate on a strict ideological doctrine. Pre 21st century, the UK electorate was largely defined and separated by three main ideologies: Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism. This gave the Conservative Party the ability to promote principles over pragmatism. However, as social developments occurred and ideological affiliations declined, political parties are no longer able to promote these narrow principles, as they are forced to adopt a wider spectrum of principles that apply to the mainstream electorate. The presence of 'right wing' and 'left wing' electorate has demised rapidly since pre 21st century politics. It is clear that the main parties adopt a more central position, the Conservatives being known as Centre Right. This demise in ideology in general has been mirrored by the Conservative...
Words: 664 - Pages: 3
...Question #1: What does Hume’s empiricism consist of? Hume’s empiricism consists of the theory that all of our thoughts begin, in some form, with our memory of something our senses have directly experienced. He points out “…that there is a considerable distinction between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat…and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation or anticipates it by his imagination.” (p 388A) Hume breaks down “the perceptions of mind” into two parts: ideas or thoughts and impressions. Impressions are what have been left on our memory after having experienced something through our senses and thoughts are derived from these impressions. He claims that even when we imagine something completely wild and fantastical, that we are just blending our impressions. . Question #2: How does it compare to Descartes’ rationalism? Both, Hume’s empiricism and Descartes’ rationalism, theories revolve around our ability to think or to have thoughts and ideas different from our reality. They both break the mind’s perceptions into two parts; descartes’ being – “he believes that mental categories are what shape knowledge” the knowledge that we possess in our minds that actually perceive any distinctions about anything through are senses are what Hume would call these Impressions. The wax showed Descartes that even though he can perceive in different ways the same object, the object still exists. And Hume similarly claims that we only know...
Words: 333 - Pages: 2
...Correlational Studies. On one end of the spectrum, Empiricism focuses on knowledge that is obtained through experience; on the contrary, rationalism strongly believes that knowledge is independently gained (Markie, 2013). Thus, the two opposing views continue generate controversy on the topic of scientific observations. In response to this weeks reading, I have chosen to reaffirm my position that both rationalism and empiricism are important for building scientific knowledge, and that empiricism...
Words: 741 - Pages: 3
...The theory of knowledge, or Epistemology, is an important area in philosophy. Many great philosophical debates have developed because of the different views and principle issues dealing with epistemology. Although there are several principle issues in epistemology, my areas of focus are, empiricism, rationalism, Skepticism, and Justification. Empiricism is the theory that experience is the main focus in giving us knowledge of the world. Empiricists believe that knowledge without personal experience is impossible. Some empiricist believe that a new born baby come into the world knowing nothing and everything that they learn is only by experience. The mind is furnished with information from experience. The concept that all knowledge is arrived from the senses, leads me to believe that empiricist think that it is unreasonable to talk about things we have not experienced. Most radical empiricists believe that religions have no concrete evidence and consequently religious beliefs are insignificant. In essence, empiricism requires solid physical evidence to be considered knowledge. In contrast to empiricism, rationalism is the belief that reasoning is the most important aspect of acquiring knowledge. Rationalists believe that we have some instinctive knowledge. Certain things we just know with having personal experience directly disputes the theory that empiricists believe about newborn babies. Rationalists also believe that some truths can be worked out without having...
Words: 559 - Pages: 3
...Education The classroom harbors individuals with comprehensive distinct challenges. It is the teacher’s responsibility to be observant of each learner’s needs in context with the community in which they live. The African philosophy of kindness, community and compassion forms the basis for this. In the following essay, the broad, dynamic framework of African philosophy will be explored as well as the ways in which this philosophy can be used to assist a withdrawn, unconfident learner. What is the African philosophy? African philosophy can be traced as far back as the days of the Ancient Egyptians. It was a reaction to the difficulties in Africa caused by the rule of the Western thought. It was a fight for an African identity. In Western philosophy, the individual is the greater focus, however in African philosophy the focus is on the community. Tradition and culture also form an important part of this framework of education. There are 4 types of African philosophy. Ethnic philosophy This is a “holistic” approach and considers the “whole” involvement of human beings. This is an important approach to implement in the classroom. To take a “holistic” approach with each learner would be to consider the child’s age, background, culture, emotional and physical needs. It is also essential to consider the learner’s past experiences. Only once all this information is in place can a teacher do further investigations as to why a child is withdrawn. While ethnic...
Words: 916 - Pages: 4
...This was said by empiricist Hume. It means that we can never an idea which is not somehow based on sense experience. It is logical to agree with Hume that our significant knowledge does derive from our sense experience. However there are counter arguments for the origin of all our ideas being derived from sense experience, which this essay will aim to evaluate. Empiricism is the theory that the origin of our ideas is experience. Our concepts are derived from our sensory experiences of sight, touch, smell, taste and sound - and our concepts are consequently copies of these sense experiences. So under empiricism we will point to sense experience to back up our beliefs and ideas. As a result we can never imagine a totally original idea, it will be a manipulation of the composition of and already existing thing. To illustrate when we have an idea of an angel this is not an original idea - in fact it is based on the sense experience of a birds wings and a body of a person. This leads on to the other significant feature of empiricism, this is the use of simple and complex ideas. We learn simple concepts by associating them with experience, then the word/concept becomes meaningful. For example the word "horse" will only become meaningful to a child when the word has been associated to an experience at a petting zoo for example. We then can generate complex ideas from manipulating simple ideas, to illustrate Hume used the example of manipulating the simple ideas of "gold" and "mountain"...
Words: 794 - Pages: 4
... Hume takes on a completely skeptical approach to the matter, not allowing any space for discussion. He, in basic terms, states that the relationship between cause and effect does not exist. On the other hand, Kant is more flexible, stating that, in some way, Hume is right, but in many ways, he is not. Second is the fact that, in his argument, Hume uses his understanding of empiricism and solely that to form a conclusion, while Kant uses traces of both empiricism and rationalism to explain his theory. Lastly, it is clear that Hume limits the mind. He gives no importance to the tool that is responsible for the progress of humanity, by solely talking about the importance of experience and the senses. Kant, again, is not biased, and uses both experience and reason as a basis to his argument, thus giving both these elements strength. These are three of the reasons why Immanuel Kant´s ideas on the relationship between cause and effect are more acceptable than that on David Hume. Kant is less skeptical, has a broader range and variety of arguments, and does not limit his understanding to one aspect of...
Words: 1882 - Pages: 8
...baronial estates, imperial cities and principalities (* absolutist and authoritarian). 5. The Lutheran Church had remained the dominant force in the cultural life of Germany. a. Science and technology had not developed sufficiently to have any social or philosophical importance. b. The new science of Newton seemed incapable of explaining anything more than material and mechanical matters. It could not be the sole means for arriving at knowledge. 6. Most German Philosophers of the 18th Century regarded David Hume (radical empiricism) as reducing all rational truths and scientific laws to animal faith (instinct). Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 1. Out of this provincial German culture and intellectual background came Kant who provided for the first time a philosophical answer to Hume's's skepticism. 2. The Critique of Pure Reason published by Kant in 1781. a. Kant saw the logical outcome of Hume's radical empiricism. b. Radical empiricism claims that the basis of all knowledge lies in experience -- this, to Kant, leads to the conclusion that there is no knowledge. c. There is...
Words: 318 - Pages: 2
...Knowledge or Belief Joseph Bland American Intercontinental University Abstract What is knowledge and what is belief? Can the two topics mean the same? Knowledge is something that is believed to be true. Beliefs are truths that have no evidence to prove it is true. There are two kinds of truth empirical truth and necessary truth. These are statements that require a great deal of thought. Knowledge of Belief The person that I chose to write about who I truly believe loves me is my mother. I believe mothers are born with the distinct characteristic for love. Some may confuse the meaning of love with being a provider all of which falls under the characteristics of a mother’s love but different meaning. There is no concrete evidence that proves mothers are born to love but through experience and physical emotions I have come to believe it is true. I could begin the discussion by stating I have five other siblings but the topic of the discussion is me and my mother not my siblings. My mother has displayed her love for me in many ways. I grew up in an era when things weren’t as plentiful as they are today. The community and the environment that I was raised in wasn’t the friendliest or safest place to raise a child. There have been many times my mother has deprived herself of or went without things because she knew it was more important to take care of my needs first. There is no concrete evidence that would prove my mother loves me, only the actions and reaction she has...
Words: 753 - Pages: 4
...Epistemology PHL 215: Philosophy Methods and Applications November 21, 2011 Epistemology is a branch of study in philosophy that studies knowledge. “The broad definition accords the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek work empeira, “experience”.” (Empiricism, 2011) Epistemology consist of many elements surrounding justified belief such as what constitutes a justified belief; a belief could be justified because certain factors are present, or “what we experience through clusters of sensory impressions” (Moore, Bruder, 2011 pg.129) or a belief could be justified due to someone mental state. Epistemology distinguishes between adequate knowledge and inadequate knowledge. Copernicus during the 1600’s believed that theoretical knowledge was determined based on past events. Galileo fought with him in separating science from the church. Galileo claimed that individuals should be able to question and investigate matters which may be false in experience or reason. Galileo did not question the Church to rule in their domain, but matters which could be shown to be true or false in life’s observations should not be subject to scripture or justified only by scripture. “It is the separation of ethics from knowledge (of nature, history, etc), of the separation of science from the legitimate domain of the Church; he claimed the right of the people to investigate profane matters, questions which were capable of falsification in experience or reason...
Words: 704 - Pages: 3
...A miracle, as a broad definition, is an act of God that “transgresses the laws of nature” (David Hume), an act that seems to defy all rational. For many this offers strong evidence for the existence of God, as these inexplicable events must have a cause, that of a transcendent, metaphysical being. However, for others, most notably David Hume, miracles are a logical impossibility, an oxymoron if you will. He tried to prove, through a priori and a posterior reasoning that miracles, because of their metaphysical origin, cannot be what people claim them to be (intervention by God). Problems with the law of nature to language problems with the way miracles are experienced and reported provide ammunition for those that agree with the assumption in the title. By defining what miracles are and then exploring the criticisms and counter criticisms for these definitions we should arrive at a conclusion as to whether miracles, in the sense they are defined, are possible. Brian Davis proposed that there were two different types of miracles, the essential difference being the varying degree of possible divine intervention that can be attributed to the event. Strong Miracles are events that can only be attributed to God – he is intervening in the world to change the course of history. This may be, as Hume suggested, a “transgression of the laws of nature by a particular violation of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. However, Humey boy took issue with strong miracles...
Words: 2011 - Pages: 9
...Metaphysics DALILE, Boushra Rationalism vs. Empiricism: A Deficient Distinction Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It explores how knowledge can be acquired and considers its limits and validity. Rationalism and empiricism are distinct epistemological schools of thought. Among others, they differ significantly regarding the source of concepts and ideas. Prominent rationalists, including Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, argue that one must rely on reason as a purely deductive process to attain justified truths about reality (Cottingham 1988). In contrast, empiricists, including Locke, Berkeley and Hume, argue that knowledge is derived from the role of experience and sense data to formulate ideas. The question of what is the ideal foundation of knowledge is still debatable to date. I will argue that the rationalist vs. empiricist distinction is not exhaustive, and that carefully considering the approach-discipline relationship is crucial. In order to support this claim, this essay will discuss differences between rationalism and empiricism. Next, it will closely examine the advantages of each, drawing on the works of René Descartes and David Hume. Finally, this essay will identify problems with both theories and argue that reason and experience can together generate factual knowledge with respect to the subject matter. The major difference between rationalism and empiricism concerns their knowledge basis. Francis Bacon has...
Words: 1768 - Pages: 8
...There is a distinct difference between rationalism and empiricism. In fact, they are very plainly the direct opposite of each other. Rationalism is the belief in innate ideas, reason, and deduction. Empiricism is the belief in sense perception, induction, and that there are no innate ideas. With rationalism, believing in innate ideas means to have ideas before we are born.-for example, through reincarnation. Plato best explains this through his theory of the forms, which is the place where everyone goes and attains knowledge before they are taken back to the “visible world”. Innate ideas can explain why some people are just naturally better at some things than other people are- even if they have had the same experiences. Believing that reason is the main source of knowledge is another clear distinction of rationalism. Rationalists believe that the 5 senses only give you opinions, not reasons. For example, in Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one shape to begin with- but once the candle is lit, it begins to melt, lose its fragrance, and take on a completely different shape than it had started with. This argument proves that our senses can be deceiving and that they should not be trusted. Deduction is the third characteristic of rationalism, which is to prove something with certainty rather than reason. For example, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God through deductive reasoning in his third meditation. It went something like this: “I have an...
Words: 439 - Pages: 2
...Philosophers sometimes view the idea of human freedom of action as the real problem of free will, but this classification is one of the main misunderstandings in both subject matters. The misunderstanding between freedom and free will may have begun as early as the time when Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, argued their cases to support the theory of the modern concept of compatibilism. From both Hobbes’ and Hume’s perspective, to be free to act on one's will is basically to be free of external restrictions, limitations, constraints, and controls. From their perspective, the absence any external constraint gives makes the agent freedom to do as he or she wills, even if the person’s will itself is determined (or predetermined) by causal laws of nature. Factors That Affect Personal Development Take a moment to consider all of the genetic and environmental factors that have shaped who you are today, and you will quickly become overwhelmed. From gender, race, and socioeconomic background—to family dynamics, education, and genetics—there are millions of factors that have converged to make you who you are. Most people believe that humans are responsible for their own actions and that they all have the opportunity to make the right choices. But when you consider how large a role race, gender, wealth, and family upbringing all play in shaping an individual, can you truly believe that everyone has the same opportunities? Furthermore, are there some conditions under which people cannot...
Words: 1945 - Pages: 8
