The Difference Between Empiricism and Rationalism - Assignment Example

Teacher Explain the difference between empiricism and rationalism. 167 Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which claims that knowledge comes from experience. This was the philosophical thought of the empiricist claim of John Locke who proposed that knowledge only comes from experience and feeling. Rationailism on the otehr hand is a theory of knowledge which asserts that reason is already inherent or given in man. The rationalists asserts that reason is already an innate attribute and is already previously present as expressed in Descartes Cartesian proof.   2. What are the definitions for the following terms: a posteriori, a priori, innate ideas, tabula rasa, direct realism, representational realism, and what are the three kinds of skepticism. a. Posteoriori - A posteriori is a knowledge that requires an empirical investigation of the outside world. This therefore requires using the senses and consistent with the rationalist thought. To illustrate a posteoriori thinking, we can cite ourselves as an example by either touching ourselves or seeing ourselves in the mirror to validate that we indeed exist and has physical presence. In sum, posteoriori is an acquired knowledge and contingent truth. b. A priori - A priori can be likened to an acquired knowledge and necessary truths. These are knowledge that is independent of the observation of our sensory perceptions to validate its truth. These are truths and knowledge that does not validation of the physical world to justify. For example, we can use the statement that “Sarah is a mother” because it would imply that by using a distinctly feminine name, we will realize that it is only women who could be mother. It does not need any justification in the outside world nor further investigation because we just know that it is only women who can give birth or become a mother because it is only them who has the physical facility to bear a child and it follows that men cannot bear child because their body will not allow it. There are however exemptions to the priori mode of thinking such as Anselm’s ontological premise in arguing in the premise of the existence of God. His argument purports to a priori proof of God’s existence which is independent of any proof or observation. He argued that because God is God, His existence does not need to be validated by experience to justify that He exists. He concludes that because there is nothing that exists to be greater than God, then it is unimaginable to think that there is no God. c. Innate ideas – is also known as Descartes Theory of Ideas. These are ideas that are inherent in man or natural attribute of thought. Albeit this theory of knowledge was not expounded extensively in a treatise such as other works, innate ideas was mentioned in a letter to Guillaume Gibieuf in January 19, 1642 whereby Descartes wrote, “I am certain that I can have no knowledge of what is outside me except by means of the ideas I have within me.” d. Tabula rasa – is a theory of knowlege primarily asserted by Locke that the human consciousness evolves and therefore starts as an “empty mind” or a tabula rasa. It continuously evolves with experience, learning and sensation which are the sources of our ideas. e. Direct realism – Or naïve realism is a philosophy of perception that was synthesized through debate over nature. Direct realism is a product by our conscious experience that the world exists because we can feel that we are in it. f. Representational realism – Posits as opposed to direct realism that the world has tangible existence, that the world around us is only a representation in our consciousness or a mere product of neural activities in our mind. This can be best exemplified by “The Matrix” or imagined world in the movie “The Matrix” where the world only existed in our thoughts and created by a computer program. g. What are the three kinds of skepticism – the three kinds of skepticism are philosophical skepticism, scientific skepticism and religious skepticism. Philosophical skepticism is an approach in investigating any phenomena in nature whereby one would require evidence. Scientific skepticism on the other hand is the one who questions nature on the basis of scientific understanding while religious skepticism is to doubt religious claims and to emphasize more on scientific and historical evidence than merely relying on blind faith. 3. How does Al-Ghazali distinguish among knowledge, immediate experience, and faith? Al-Ghazali posits that knowledge is a result of illumination of divine inspiration which according to him, "when God takes care of the heart “. He argued that true knowledge can only be had by a mystical experience and this kind of knowledge is not fitted to the ordinary people but can only be had by someone who has an insight into the mysteries of faith. 4. What was Descartes’ goal, and what method id he employ to get there? Descartes was an advocate or the originator of the Cartesian proof. Cartestian proof presupposes that reason is already inherent in man. It is already there even before he or she attempts to evolve or make a conscious effort to even think. For Descartes, the mere exercise of thinking is already a validation that one exists. Even the process of doubting one’s existence, in Descartes perspective, is already a proof that one exists due to the sheer exercise of thinking.   5. Describe the three stages of Descartes’ systematic doubting process. The three stages of Descartes’ systematic doubting process is first to doubt all beliefs, thoughts and matter. Even the perception and sensory experience which is a manner of learning the world is to be doubted. And if knowledge or belief can be disproved, its basis or justification then is insufficient. 6. What is the one truth that Descartes thinks is beyond all forms of doubt? For Descartes, only the Cartesian proof is beyond all forms of doubt. That reason is already inherent in man. It is already there even before he or she attempts to evolve or make a conscious effort to even think. For Descartes, the mere exercise of thinking is already a validation that one exists. Even the process of doubting one’s existence, in Descartes perspective, is already a proof that one exists due to the sheer exercise of thinking. 7. Descartes reaches the conclusion that he is a thinking thing. How does he describe the nature of a thinking thing? Descartes statement “I am a thing that thinks” meant that the exercise of the mind is more immediately known and thus more certain than that of the bodies, including our own.For Descartes, the mere exercising of thinking is already a validation that one exists. As thought cannot be separated from the body, it is necessary therefore that “I exists”. Even doubting one’s existence, in Descartes perspective, is already a proof that one exists due to the sheer exercise of thinking. 8. Into what two categories does Hume divide the “perceptions of the mind?” It falls into the category of rationalism as perceptions of the mind are the criticism of Hume’s argument against those “ideas “ posited by Locke that are not ideas but rather “objects of the minds” and therefore are mere “perceptions”. In his theory, he argued that by doing so he restored what ideas really meant as it was perverted by Locke. 9. What is Hume’s empirical test? Hume empircal test is that all knowledge are derived from experience. 10. How does Hume critique the traditional understanding of causality? Hume critique the traditional understanding of causality by stating that the cause is not always known by experience. Experience just cannot always know the contradiction between objects. 11. What is the problem of induction? Why can we not prove that the future will resemble the past? Induction or experiences that resembles to what we experienced is a method of inference that is important in scientific reasoning and in our daily lives. This method of reasoning does not always resolve dilemmas about a certain phenomenon. It also cannot prove that the future will resemble the past even if past experiences were reliable in determining knowledge. 12. What is Clifford’s overall argument? What is James’s overall argument? Clifford believed that it is wrong to believe in anything that has no compelling evidence. James however that insufficient evidence may already suffice when warranted by practical considerations. Clifford also asserted the notion that beliefs are always a suspect until proven to be true by evidence. James provided exemptions that in beliefs should be given sufficient benefit of the doubt so as not to miss a more significant truth. Read More