What Are the Important Differences between Rationalists and Empiricists - Term Paper Example

Although Immanuel Kant managed to join both schools and gave birth to so-called rational empiricism, the differences between schools are important as they demonstrate the way one is able to get information and knowledge.

            There are several main points that divide rationalists and empiricists. They are these ones:

1. How do people acquire knowledge?
2. What are the sources of information/knowledge?
3. How do people get their concepts?

It is known that rationalists and empiricists give different answers to the above-mentioned questions. Such rationalists as Des Cartes stated that one always describes the highest truth by means of logic and reason. One should not apply subjective or direct experience to do that. From an empiricist’s point of view, experience is very important as it is the basis of one’s development of logic. Once Isaac Asimov uttered that “I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects of faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you do not have to waste your time in either attacking or defending” (Lacewing, 65). This statement demonstrates that for Asimov it was better and more convenient to use rationalism than empiricism.

            As for empiricism, it teaches that one should not try learning more about God with the help of reason. This school recommends using two projects instead of that. They are: critical and constructive. The first one focuses on the elimination of what is known by metaphysicians. The second pays attention to the commentaries of religious texts.

            A strong point of empiricism is that people are able quickly to understand the sources of information/knowledge. In the majority of cases, it is received with the help of the senses. It is a casual process. Experience helps to form one’s concepts. When the latter is gained, their understanding gives to the individual analytic knowledge.

Thus, John Locke is sure that “all ideas are derived from sense experience. The mind is a ‘tabula rasa’, empty at birth. He begins his argument by attacking the opposite point of view – that some ideas are not derived from sense experience, but are ‘innate’. By ‘innate idea’ Locke means a concept or proposition which is part of the mind from birth. For an idea to be part of the mind, the mind (the person) must know or be conscious of it: no proposition can be said to be in the Mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of” (Lacewing, 12).

            Thus, both rationalism and empiricism are connected with knowledge. However, they present different ways how one can get it. They explain knowledge in different ways. It is necessary to stress that empiricism and rationalism are two kinds of positions that are applied in epistemology which is the branch of philosophy devoted to considering knowledge. One of the major distinctions between rationalism and empiricism is their attitude toward intuition. Rationalism believes in it when another school does not accept this source of knowledge.