Introduction
One might not adore going to school to get knowledge but learn via other means daily. The burning question is whether you know things already. It is critical to know how human beings learn, what learning is all about, and how we use it daily. The theory of knowledge is called epistemology. The other main philosophical terms to understand are a priori and a posteriori. A priori involves coming up with a conclusion before an experiment by employing logic and reason. On the other hand, a posteriori is learning new things through experience.
A New Life Scenario
In this scenario, the only way to discover knowledge and understand the situation is by observation and measurement, which is valid with empiricism. On the other hand, rationalism states that new people would have discovered their surroundings by just thinking, which is unrealistic. With my full reasoning capabilities, I cannot comprehend my surroundings without learning and observation. After observing the street for some time, especially the traffic lights and how the vehicle at the intersection gives way before proceeding, I can understand that the traffic light is to prevent chaos and provide order.
Scenario Comparison: Rationalism and Empiricism
Rationalism and empiricism are the two main ideas of epistemology. These two have very distinct differences between them due to their differences in ideologies. The concept of innate thoughts, deduction, and reason is rationalism. At the same time, empiricism is the perception of induction and a sense of discernment; with empiricism, there are no innate ideas (Chivers, 2022). They have innate ideas that usually come via ways of reincarnation, which is associated with rationalism. According to reincarnation, one can have memories and knowledge of the past life if one is reborn. Plato’s conception of innate ideas was characterized by this theory of forms, which is the location where everyone travels to gain knowledge before returning to the physical or visible world (Eschauzier, 2021). I was told I did not comprehend something and should explain it simply. Therefore, I must understand the main reasons. Rationalists believe that the primary source of knowledge is the reason. The five senses, empiricists believe, give a new viewpoint on something but do not justify why something is the way it is.
The theory of innate ideas is rejected by empiricists because if a baby already knew everything, why can’t it prove it? Someone who learned to walk and talk in one life would undoubtedly be able to do so in the next. However, in this situation, one is brought to life without any experience and will not comprehend what is happening. Empiricists say that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, or an empty cabinet. A person who is born blind and has no sense of color, for example, can fill this open cabinet with experiences.
Empiricism has a principle of induction. It is the belief that few, if any, things can be proven. For instance, I can tell that a $1 bill is green, but how can we know it is still green when it is not visible? It is not easy to understand something with 100% certainty, and there are few things about which we can make a knowledge claim based on repeated encounters. Despite comprehending the happening on the busy street, I will need more learning and observation to understand the occurrence completely. Consider the concept of a triangle, for example. A typical individual has probably seen many triangles of all shapes, sizes, colors, and materials. However, until we have a mental image of a triangle, how can we know that a three-sided form is, in fact, a triangle? Empiricists will generally respond that the process of abstraction involves a loss of information: impressions are strong memories of reflections, whereas concepts are weak recollections of reviews. When we study each experience alone, we can see that no two are similar; nevertheless, when we recollect many sensations of triangles, we can see that they are all three-sided objects. My view, therefore, closely aligns with empiricism.
Whether Rationalism and Empiricism Are True
It dramatically matters why rationalism and imperialism are valid because both ideas tend to explain the existence of various phenomena in life. Rationalists believe that everything in the world has a purpose. When an object is tossed high into the air, it returns to earth not because a million people were watching but because there is a reason for it: gravity. Furthermore, metal is a conductor, unlike wood, allowing electric charges to flow freely. Rationalism tries to uncover the underlying pre-existing generic principles (that did not originate with man) that are independent of everyone’s knowledge perspective. As a result, irrefutable notions describing the world’s laws have emerged.
According to empiricists, electrical conductivity rules depend on human observation (Ph.D., S. M., 2019). We learned that metal is a conductor and wood is not because we witnessed electricity passing through a piece of metal for a long time. Under normal conditions, our senses do not deceive, and experience can reveal if an occurrence repeats repeatedly and obeys specific rules or whether it happened at random.
Conclusion
In conclusion, like other philosophical conflicts, the rationalist/empiricist debate is ultimately about our place in the world as sensible, thoughtful people. It is factual to state that empiricism ways out rationalism due to its well-structured philosophies. We learn new things daily in the world via observation and experiments. Rationalism and empiricism are the two main ideas of epistemology. These two have very distinct differences between them due to their differences in ideologies.
References
Chivers, T. (2022). The Rationalist’s Guide to the Galaxy: Superintelligent AI and the Geeks Who Are Trying to Save Humanity’s Future. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Ph.D., S. M. (2019). Presenting The Rationalism and Empiricism Debate! (Little Library of Philosophy) (1st ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Eschauzier, M. (2021). Existential Rationalism: Handling Hume’s Fork (Unlock Tao). Independently published.