Introduction
Rationalism is a theory in which the measure of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. Rationalistic philosophers believed that reason is the exclusive path to knowledge. Not all philosopher are uniquely empiricist or rationalist, some of them have two stand points belonging to the schools of thoughts (Lacey 286_287). Empiricist school of thought on the other hand posits that all knowledge or ideas held by the human being comes about as a result of experience through the five body senses that are external. By experiencing such sensations as pain and pleasure we gain knowledge
Discussion
Socrates (470_399Bc) was a rationalistic philosopher. He divided the soul into two distinct parts: The rational and the irrational soul. The irrational part is contains in it the emotions and desires. On the other hand the rational part is our true self beyond our conscious knowledge but can be communicated to us by way of dreams and images. For moral development to occur in a person the philosopher is charged with the responsibility of cleansing the irrational soul. To make a complete person the rational soul has to be joined to the irrational soul. To Socrates rationalism is not just a mere intellectual process but is a move in perception to make an upright moral person.
Rene Descartes a rationalistic philosopher fulfilled that “thought cannot be separated from me” T o him things exist because he can think and that thinking process cannot be doubted. To him sensual experiences distort reality by giving a person an illusion. Rational thinking should doubt every belief about reality.
Empiricism is a theory that states, knowledge starts from experience. It emphasizes the importance of sense in the formation of ideas and acquisition of knowledge. Although there were contrasting views on between rationalism and empiricism there was an integration of the two in the early 20th century. Philosophers like Charles Sanders integrated the fundamental insights of the importance of sensual experiences and thinking. He simply laid ground for today’s scientific Empiricism. He presupposed that the objects of knowledge are real things, the characters of real things do not depend on our perceptions of them and every person who has the experience of the real things will agree on the truth about them John Dewey in his Instrumentalist theory says that human s adapt their past experiences of things to perform experiments, and later test the pragmatic values of those experience using scientific tools. The results generate ideas and form basis for basis for future references.
According to (Peter Markie, 2008) the rationalists and empiricists differ when it comes to the question “How can we gain knowledge” Rationalists believe so much in Intuition or deduction.Intuition is a type of rational insight. Deduction is a process in which collusions are made based on intuited knowledge or premises. Conclusions are considered to be true if the premises area also true. For example, we intuit that five is a prime number which is greater than four. From this knowledge we make deductions that there is a prime number greater than four. Through intuition and deduction knowledge is gained free of sense experience. Rationalism depends on how its proponents comprehend the link between intuition and truth. Some take intuition to be perfect ultimate truth. Others give room for the possibility of false intuited propositions.
In rationalism there is the assertion that knowledge is gained independent of experience. There is an already existing innate knowledge. The innate knowledge gives humans their rational character. This innate knowledge is neither learnt through sense experience nor intuition and deduction, is it something humans are born with. Experience is just but a process that brings these experiences to our conscious hence experiences do not provide us with knowledge. According to the innate concept thesis not all our concepts are gained from experience. A concept can only be considered to be innate if the knowledge contained in that knowledge is also innate. In rationalistic view it can further be concluded that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason. As a source of knowledge reason is always superior to experience.
In rationalism if we claim to know the truth by either intuition or deduction we then do not give room for any skepticism with regard to the truth. In contrast to rationalism, Empiricism claim is that we do not have any source of knowledge. Empiricism negates the rationalistic view that humans are born with an innate knowledge. Our knowledge is entirely dependent on the sensual experiences. There is no way humans can have innate ideas in any subject area hence experience is our only source of knowledge. Empiricists argue that reason alone cannot give knowledge. Therefore, reason cannot give us superior knowledge. To Empiricists humans are born with a clean slate and that knowledge can only be gained.
Empiricism has various implications in the classroom use. Noam Chomsky (“Recent Contributions to the Theory of Innate ideas,”pg 129) he tries to explain how language is acquired. He posits that human beings are born with Language acquisition device (LAD) that is responsible for acquisition of language. He assumes that learners of a language are endowed with innate knowledge of a universal grammar of natural languages. Rationalism and Empiricism have been applied in different areas. For instance, in Psychology Rationalists assumed that to prove that a drug working something more than experience was required. There is needed to be proof that an inference to the core state of the ailing body and an account of the action of the drug. Empiricists on the other hand viewed medical knowledge as mater of just having had the appropriate experiences and having remembered them correctly (Antonia Lolordo 2008).
To support Empiricism a philosopher by the name Leibniz argues that mathematical knowledge is innate there disputing the intuition as source of knowledge. He argues that people have substantive knowledge about the external world in mathematics and what people know in that area perceive it to be true. Therefore experience cannot be source of our knowledge in mathematics. On the other hand he provides us with another view that explanation of our knowledge is that we gain it through intuition and deduction. He mentions Logic, Metaphysics and morals as other areas that our experience cannot provide to us with what knowledge can.
Empiricists and Rationalists alike have further attacked the concept of innateness. To begin with they give an account of just how sense experience, intuition and deduction present us with knowledge that is said to be innate. John Locke goes ahead to argue that the assertion that humans have innate knowledge is false. He wonders just how this innate knowledge exists in our minds.
Conclusion
In an empirical world there is no justification for assumption that there is a class of people who deserve fewer opportunities for self development, or curtail their rights to freedom or education (. Naturalism.Org 2008). There are no empirical scientific proofs to support the notion that human needs should not be met because of their biological or cultural differences. Faith, religion and revelation are not empirical and therefore can open up space in which reason for inequality might be devised. Rationalism on the other hand endeavors to influence wider society towards secularism thereby liberating the masses from influence of religion and priesthood. Rationalism is aimed at committing the liberated person to reason even if he is not pleased to do so.
References
Antonia Lolordo. Blackwell Reference online. Early Modern Critiques of Rationalist Psychology. 2005. Web.
Empiricism and Equality, Prospects for Enlightenment. 2008. Web.
Sanal Edamaruku.Indian Rationalist Association. WHY RATIONALISM? 2006. Web.
Stanford University of Philosophy. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. 2008. Web.
René Descartes. 2008. Web.
Rationalism. 2008. Web.