Rationalism versus Empiricism in the Philosophic Debates - Essay Example

29 July Argument Introduction Throughout the evolution of humanity, rationalism vs. empiricism was amongthe most complex philosophic debates. Generally, people are being divided into the two broad categories: those who rely on rational judgments about the reality (rationalists) and those, who ground their judgments on their sensual reactions, personal observations, and subjective experience (empiricists). In the history of philosophy, Plato is fairly regarded as one of the major proponents of rationalism, while John Locke is among those, who defend their sensual positions and are included into the list of the prominent empiricists. I believe that in our judgments about reality we cannot abstract ourselves from the sensual reactions and subjective judgments; as a result, empiricism is the philosophy that is closer to the reality and reflects the true way of judging and evaluating the surrounding reality. Rationalism is an important trend in philosophy. Plato is fairly regarded as one of the basic proponents of rationalism in philosophy. Rationalism in general and Plato, in particular, assert that knowledge never comes from senses but is innate (Anonymous 335). As such, there is nothing sensual in nature and individuals who seek to objectivity in their judgments should rely on their innate knowledge and avoid using personal experience and observations. It should be noted, that where Plato opposes to the relevance of the senses as a potential source of reliable knowledge, his opposition is justified by the fact that the senses are bodily and thus morally tainted (Anonymous 335). Actually, everything associated with body, in Plato’s opinion, is morally tainted and cannot be considered as a good source of knowledge. Such rejection of the senses is the definitive feature of rationalism (Anonymous 335). To some extent, Plato’s arguments about the senses his opposition to using the senses as the source of knowledge are justified. He is confident that absolute truth and absolute good do exist (Anonymous 335). However, never in life was he able to perceive and grasp the meaning of these absolute beauties and absolute good with his senses; rather, a rational person in search for objective knowledge will do everything possible to develop an intellectual vision of reality which has nothing to do with the senses but applies to reason (Anonymous 335). Surprisingly or not, but in his defense of rationalism, Plato does not only exclude the senses as potential sources of knowledge but also implies that other emotions, including love, lust, fear, and folly interfere with true knowledge and prevent humans from coming into the contact with everything truly beautiful, absolute, and eternal (Anonymous 336). Here, the concept of equality seems the best means to prove the relevance of Plato’s philosophic arguments. Take a look at two pencils. They have been measured and are equal in length (Anonymous 337). By setting one pencil in the middle of the other, we create a different picture and the pencils no longer seem equal (Anonymous 337). As a result, bodily senses are extremely unreliable in the production of knowledge. Moreover, the senses contradict with the objective rational knowledge which is innate. In case of pencils, there are objective proofs (measurements) to the fact that pencils are equal, and their movement in space or changing positions does not change the fact of equality. The changes in our perceptions, too, do not undermine the relevance of the equality argument. As a result, objective information, facts, and innate knowledge are the only sources of objective truth. Personal experience and bodily senses distort the reality and confuse a person, who seeks to understand this reality in its true colors. However, rationalism is the only way to judge the reality. John Locke was among the first to defend his position on empiricism. His philosophic argument directly contradicts to that of Plato in that Locke “rejects the typical rationalist claim that some of our ideas and knowledge are innate. That is, we are not born with certain kinds of knowledge already implanted in our minds” (Anonymous 338). In his essay concerning human understanding, John Locke provides an extensive review of arguments that support his “emotional view” of reality. Locke is confident that the rational view of reality, which treats all knowledge as innate, is impossible simply because the growing number of people do not have any understanding of even the basic ideas (Anonymous 339). Moreover, children are being born without any clear vision of reality and do not have any clear ideas in their minds; their development occurs via their personal experiences and subjective perceptions (Anonymous 339). Thus, there cannot be any innate knowledge per se. The key argument is that if there are any universal maxims, as Plato claims, everyone must have a fair understanding of these truths; otherwise, there are no such maxims and they are not innate (Anonymous 339). To continue and expand this argument, based on Locke’s philosophic judgments, the development of knowledge originates from the human senses. The mind for Locke is nothing but white paper void of all characters and a store which is both endless and empty (Anonymous 339). The question is how this knowledge comes to be furnished and what ways humans use to develop and sustain this knowledge in their minds. The answer is simple (as simple as it may seem to Locke and as unconvincing as it can be for Plato): experience is the key word in Locke’s understanding of knowledge. “In that all our knowledge is founded; and from that it ultimately derives itself” (Anonymous 339). The knowledge from the senses and experience employs a complex system of decisions regarding the evaluation of external objects and the internal processing of this information by human minds. These internal operations and the process of evaluating the information that is coming through experiences is what supplies human understanding with the material for thinking (Anonymous 340). Internal processing and external experiences for Locke are the two fountains of knowledge (and, possible, foundations of knowledge, if it is possible to say so), from which most ideas naturally spring (Anonymous 340). Locke’s argument is interesting in the sense that he tries to look deeper into how our mind works and how it processes information and generates knowledge. He states that our senses deliver critical information about objects (Anonymous 340). The senses are the sources of our understanding of the surrounding world – whether objects are round, square, cold or hot we can understand only due to the presence of the senses and in the process of reformulating the information about these perceptions in our minds (Anonymous 340). This link between the sense and the understanding Locke calls “sensation” (Anonymous 340). Sensation, however, is not the only source of knowledge for Locke – the mind and the very process of processing sensations in our mind is the second source of knowledge for humans (Anonymous 340). Human mind is a complex system of perceptions, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, based on reasoning, willing, and knowing (Anonymous 340). Yet, a distinction should be made between the ideas that are inherently subjective and the ideas that can be objective. For example, looking at the cup on the table, there is objective perception that the cup is standing on the table, and no one can deny it. It is, according to Locke, the idea that reflects external reality and could be called, according to Plato, the vision of objectivity. Simultaneously, whether the cup is cold or hot are subjective secondary meanings and can vary from person to person. As a result, Locke’s vision of empiricism is not completely subjective and does leave some room for objectivity. To some extent, Locke’s empiricism is a unique combination of the subjective and objective assumptions. Nevertheless, and taking the cup on the table as an example, we, according to Locke, perceive reality through subjective senses (i.e. whether the cup is hot or cold) and it does not mean whether the cup is on the table or takes a different spatial position. As a person who, most frequently, perceives the surrounding reality via the senses, I support Locke’s philosophy and suppose that his assumptions are more logical and realistic, compared with those of Plato. The fact is in that we cannot abstract from our senses, no matter how much Plato would want to be so. Moreover, I believe that 99 percent of humans, no matter how rational they could be, perceive the surrounding reality via their senses and, as a result, of their observations, make their judgments. However, the most convincing argument supporting Locke’s philosophy is that regarding the development of infants and children. Looking deeper into how children are being born and how they develop their cognitive abilities, it is easy to see that knowledge is never innate; nor is it completely rational. Here, I would like to refer to the well-known theory of child development written by Jean Piaget. This theory divides the process of child development into several distinct stages, and the sensomonitor stage is the first one (before the child is 2 years old). According to Piaget, “the child, through physical interaction with his or her environment, builds a set of concepts about reality and how it works. This is the stage where a child does not know that physical objects remain in existence even when out of sight” (Funderstanding). We all remember how painful our childhood experience could be at times: this pain is the result of our striving to learn more about the world around us via our experiences and senses. When we are too small to know everything about the surrounding reality, only our senses can provide us with at least some information about how the world works. We learn that holding a hot object in our hands causes pain and burns, while eating too much ice cream is the direct reason of sore throat that follows. Without these senses, our knowledge of the world would be too limited, because the reality is not completely rational and the nature has created the senses to assist humans in the process of getting acquainted with the world and the people living in it. I believe that in his judgments, Plato seeks to deny the obvious reality, which tells that senses are an integral component of our reality. Plato relies on his belief that the senses distort the objective reality and influence negatively the overall objectivity of our judgments. However, Locke, in his model of empiricism, does not try to deny this truth. Really, we are often misled by erroneous beliefs, and Locke is correct in that we perceive the reality through primary and secondary meanings. Primary meanings are the objective facts of the surrounding reality (e.g., the earth is round and a person usually has one heart). Secondary meanings are those which are more subjective (although not necessarily misleading). For example, no one can deny the objective fact that the day is sunny and the sun is shining brightly. However, that does not mean that everyone will feel the warmth coming from the sun. Some people will feel cold, while others will have a feeling that they are dying from heat. Despite the fact that these subjective judgments, like Plato says, interfere with objectivity and non-bias, we learn from them and apply this knowledge to understand other, related experiences. Locke’s argument makes more sense to me simply because it is more realistic and describes the true ways of how people learn. On the contrary, Plato’s argument is nothing else but his idealistic representation of reality, the way it COULD be, rather than the way IT IS in the present day world. Conclusion The argument between Plato and John Locke is, actually, a philosophic argument between rationalism and empiricism. Plato is confident that knowledge comes from objective judgments and senses and subjectivity influence negatively the quality of human knowledge. Locke, on the contrary, pushes the senses to the foreground and asserts that we learn about the surrounding reality via our experiences and interactions with people and objects. Unfortunately, what Plato tries to prove is idealistic, for humans cannot abstract themselves from their senses and experiences. Locke’s argument makes more sense and is closer to the reality, because what he describes in his philosophy closely resembles the ways we learn more about ourselves and the world around us and makes it possible to create a more realistic picture of the human being, which uniquely combines objectivity and rationality and uses the senses to understand the realities of life. Works Cited Anonymous. “Sources of Knowledge: Rationalism and Empiricism.” Pp. 334-342. Funderstanding. “Piaget”, Funderstanding. Web. 29 July 2010. Read More