Nevertheless, we can assume philosophy to be a consistent and rational effort to acquire knowledge about topics that do not warrant empirical investigation (Brown Web). This paper discuses some of these philosophical topics and questions.
Traditionally, rationalism and empiricism have been the normal ways that philosophy attempts to answer the question, “what do I know?”, “how do I know it?”, and "How do I get beyond mere opinion to real knowledge?" However, both rationalism and empiricism theories manifest different strengths and weaknesses in trying to explain human knowledge. The two theories differ on the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Indeed, while rationalism proposes that we gain knowledge through reasoning, empiricism on the other hand proposes that we gain knowledge through sensory experience (Markie Web). However, according to me, I find that rationalism best explains human knowledge. This is because the rationalism relevantly puts forward two concrete explanations to their theory. First, the argument that that there are instances where the content of human knowledge supersedes the information that sense experience can provide is very true. Indeed, human knowledge is not all about sense, it is about reasoning, critical thinking, logic, and rational insight. Actually, from the intuition claim, rationalism equally reckons that we should not just believe what we see but we should also be able to derive conclusions through valid arguments (Markie Web).
Indeed, in many cases we use the self-evident truth to derive more truths. This explains that we can have knowledge independent of sense experience. The rationalists’ theory also constructs accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. More so, the rationalism theory is flexible in that it adjusts its understanding of certain beliefs and adopts the denial of