Rationalism (Rene Descartes) and Empiricism (David Hume) - Essay Example

? of Lecturer 24 November Rationalism and Empiricism Like all things in life, people are bound to differ on certain issues. It is not possible for it to be the case that everyone would agree on a particular issue. Philosophy is a veritable vehicle that provides the platform for people to express themselves, by giving the premises that led to their conclusions. For example, in philosophy, there are two contrastive schools of thought; while one gives premium to reason, the other gives premium to experience. The first school of thought that gives premium to reason is the rationalist school of thought. The second school of thought is the empiricist school. While the major proponent for rationalism is Rene Descartes, the major proponent of empiricism is David Hume. Lacey (286) states that rationalism is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification.” Instead of appealing to emotions and their sensory organs, rationalists appeal to the intellect. Like all things, there are extremes in rationalism. While the opinion of some rationalists tends to fall largely in line with empiricism, meaning that they share many links with empiricism; the opinion of others see no reasons with empiricism at all. The former category of rationalists is not absolute in the beliefs they hold about the power of reason. The latter category of rationalists is of those that may safely be described as extreme rationalist. They are the ones that believe that all things can be resolved through reasoning. Howbeit, the irony is that Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza who are often hailed as the Cartesian rationalists largely depart for rationalism as established by Descartes. Both of them, based on their philosophy can be thought of more as empiricists than as rationalists (Audi 772), although they both hailed the power of reason. In fact, Leibniz agrees that “we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions” (Monadology 28, cited in Audi 772). Yet the stance of both of them, and even that of all empiricists, does not annul the power that is embedded in reasoning. Although, empiricism as a philosophy has already been broached in this essay, it is yet important to explain further. Unlike rationalism which states that most truths and ideas can be attained mainly through reason, empiricism states that all ideas, knowledge and truths can be attained through experience and what can be sensed by using human senses. The typical empiricist will ask 'How do you believe what you've not experienced?' So, for the empiricist, experience is all. It is through experience that one gets evidence to substantiate whatever opinion one clings to. Empiricists believe that there is no just reason to believe a thing or an opinion which one is not able to test. They do not see reasons why anyone would rely solely on abstract reasoning without applying sense-based experiments (Markie 233). To such empiricist who questions why anyone would trust what they have not seen, rationalists would argue that before that which is seen and witnessed (experience and experiments) came to being, there was that which was not seen (reasoning). Asides David Hume, other philosophers that can be categorized as empiricists are Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes. Before one assumes any stance in philosophy, one must have premises that back up the point one makes. One must also be sure to know that all those who have held one opinion or the other about any issue have reasons, most times cogent, for sticking to their opinion. Yet, based on arguments that have been advanced overtime, it won't be wrong to assume that rationalsim carries the day. In putting up a paper like this together, it is important that one lends credence to objectivity. By some yardsticks, one may say that empiricists are right. This is because when rationalists carry out what they believe is the key thing—reasoning, one must note that they do not think in abstract, they almost certainly think about things that have been experimented, things that have strong links with the human senses. Then, if this is the case, one would only wonder why rather than relying on reason, they would not prefer to go directly to those things that constitute their reasoning, in the first place. For example, if a wooden chair has just been broken by a reckless driver and a rationalist is called in to find a solution to the problem that has been created by the breaking of the chair by the careless driver. The rationalist would employ reasoning; they would reason in terms of the things that would be used in bringing the chair back to shape and that would be in terms of the wood, nail and perhaps, hammer. All these are physical, they appeal to the senses. They are experimental. The point one is trying to make is that, rather than think about the experiment, why not just go straight to executing one’s thought as the empiricist believes. For the empiricist, merely thinking about something, instead of doing it amounts to sheer waste of time. This is to say that, the empiricist moves straight to action and does not believe in wasting too much time in giving thoughts to problems. The point advanced above in favor of empiricism is full of flaws. There is actually no need to advance too many words in support of rationalism because the points to be made are rather simple and straight to the point. That a thing can be felt with the human senses does not mean that that the thing is real or true. Like their bearers, the human sense could be very unreliable. There are even times when sensations are untrue and deceptive. Even though these organs may not have been constructed to deceive those persons that rely on them (the empiricists), they have been corrupted by the human world. As sensory instruments, they are prone to at corruption because they have physically come in touch with other instruments of the physical world which are the epitome of decadence. On the other hand, reason, which is what rationalists rely on, exists in a world where they cannot be terminated by the corruption of the physical world. In actuality, the rationale behind the opinion held by empiricists that experience supersedes reasoning is even reasoning. One would wonder how empiricists are able to make their point known without employing reasoning. It is something that should make empiricists covers their faces in shame. They argue against reasoning, yet they employ reasoning to achieve this. That's rather hypocritical. Furthermore, the very things that empiricism holds on to – experiments, experiences, etc. – were brought to being by reasoning. The rationalist would say that before anything that is in existence today was created or came forth; it was definitely conceived in the mind of someone. The person that conceived the idea in their mind, the rationalist, definitely used reasoning before those things was brought forth. So, the point that the rationalists would lay emphasis on is that if no one had reasoned out what all empiricists today cling to, there would in fact be nothing like experiments, experiences and tests, let alone empiricism. In fact, there would be no empiricist to argue against rationalism. If the things that today exist in the world are indeed the results of the reasoning, it means the same person would have had a hand in the creation of human beings (empiricists inclusive). This person is believe to be God by religionists. Examining the subject matter that has to do with the existence of God, rationalists and empiricists usually, as expected, stand on different sides of the fence. Rationalists like Descartes claim that they can lucidly state that God exists and that God created the earth. Descartes’ claims about the existence of God is similar to his belief that, in mathematics, he can establish, by connecting to his reasoning, that a triangle has two right angles. Descartes mentions that attaining knowledge requires being certain. He says that this certainty that is needed is what empiricism lacks. Descartes believes that we cannot be sure whether what we feel through our senses is felt in a dream, and not in reality. Of course, this claim by Descartes does not go without a response by the empiricist. The empiricist would wonder the reasons that rationalists like Descartes would hold on to what they cannot feel with their senses as true, and dispute what they can sense. Besides, if one dumps what one’s senses feels because one may just be dreaming, it is totally inconceivable to belief what one reasons about. This is because one is also not certain if one is really doing the reasoning by oneself; also, one may as well be reasoning in big dream. In fact, one may want to ask, ‘What if life itself is a huge dream? The empiricist would rather turn Descartes' point against him by saying that the certainty that is required to attain knowledge is lacking in rationalism, not empiricism. The rationalist would insist that there is absolutely no reason to doubt the certainty that comes from reasoning. He would also insist that God can only be known and understood through reasoning. It is often believed that God is spirit and exists in a realm where the sensory organs are unwelcome. The attributes of a spirit are similar to those of reasoning: reasoning is not of the sensory organs. So, it remains safe to assume that it exists in the same realm with God. So, through reasoning, one can have easier access to God; whereas sensory organs would not even be entertained because the corruption of the world has drenched them. The empiricist would be glad to mention that whatever they postulate is backed by what everyone, not only intellectuals, can see. So, as a result of the fact that everyone has access to it, the positions assumed by empiricists can either be corroborated or scuttled. Hence, one is right to assume that the position taken by empiricists is more transparent than that of rationalists. This assertion is far from the truth because it is not the case that only intellectuals can have access to what is produced through reasoning. Every human being has the capacity to think, so everyone can have access to it. In fact, each person can even conceive their own ideas. It may be stated that the argument of one of the school of thought is better than that of the other. Yet the arguments have been going on for some years now. One must also state that the points that have been raised and can still be raised by proponents of either side are almost inexhaustible. Thus, depending on one's orientation and life's philosophy, one would give the victory to one of them. From all that has been said it is very clear that rationalism, in terms of practicality, accessibility and more, is preferable to empiricism. Inadvertently, the unseen controls the seen. Works Cited Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. (1999 Ed.). 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. Print Lacey, Alan. A Dictionary of Philosophy. 3rd Ed. London: Routledge. 1996. Print Markie, Peter. Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. “Rationalism VS Empiricism.” Zalta, Edward. (Ed.). 2004. Print Read More