Savanah McQueen

Professor Bowen
Philosophy 1000
November 28, 2019
Rationalism Vs Empiricism
In this essay I will be discussing what rationalism and empiricism is. I will then explain

both of the arguments; rationalism from Descartes argument and empiricism from Locke's

argument. Then I will argue/explain why I believe rationalism is more plausible.

Rationalism and empiricism rely on two different concepts, a priori and a posteriori. In

order to understand both arguments you need to understand what they mean. The definition for a

priori is “​relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical

deduction rather than from observation or experience.” in simpler terms it means

beliefs/concepts are made independently from sensory experience, the senses referring to our

five senses. A posteriori means “relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds

from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.” meaning that all

knowledge comes from our sensory experiences, rather than innately knowing something.

Rationalism is the belief knowledge/concepts that are from a priori and a posteriori.

There are some things we innately know without having to experience through our senses to gain

knowledge. Rationalism also believes we gain knowledge through our sensory experiences, like

seeing, feeling, hearing etc. Unlike empiricism which believes we gain knowledge only through

our senses.

Rene Descartes was a 17th century rationalist philosopher. His argument that backs up

rationalism is Cogito, Ergo sum “I think therefore I am.” his is based off a foundational belief, a

foundational belief is the ground for an idea/concept that influences all other beliefs. The belief

has no possibility of being false. It is a necessary truth, which cannot be based on a sensory

perception. It’s something we innately know without having to experience it. It’s like beams in a
building, if you build a building without beams it will collapse, it needs a foundation to work.

We don't need to feel or taste the beams to know that the building needs beams.

Rene’s “I think, therefore I am” argument is, (premise one) he is a thinking being, His

next premise is if he’s thinking then he is, the last premise is he does think. Rene concludes “I

think therefore I am.” Rene’s first premise doesn’t need depend on anything to support it, you

don’t need to have a sensory experience to know he’s a thinking being. It’s knowledge we

innately know because he is thinking about being a thinking being. The next premise proves that

‘he is’ meaning he really exists independently, his thoughts are not being controlled by an evil

genius. Rene explained that if there were an evil genius trying to device him, he would have to

exist for the evil genius to deceive him. Then the last premise proves that he does think because

he’s doubting his existence. The existence of yourself is a foundational belief because of

Descartes “I think, therefore I am” this is something that can be certainly be proven for

rationalist.

Empiricism is the belief of ​a posteriori​, all human ideas aren’t independently formed.

Everything we know is formed from our sensory experience and observation.When we are born

empiricists believe that we aren’t born with any ideas or knowledge, we're a blank slate.

Everything that we know is because it’s something we’ve experienced and observed. We aren’t

preloaded with knowledge that we naturally understand. Empiricist argument that children gain

their knowledge like addition and other concepts through the action of observing the adults

around. When observing addition you can see the action of one object coming together with a

second object that increases the number of objects. Empiricism is a big part of the development

of the scientific method because it’s based off observation and our senses, it has to hold up
against the testing of our senses to prove that it’s true. Although empiricists believe in

observation and senses, they believe that we cannot prove anything with certainty and our

perception can deceive us from the truth. For example we might think we see or hear something

that really isn’t there, we can’t entirely rely on our senses.

The philosopher John Locke was an empiricist who was a 17th century philosopher.

Locke's argument that supported the empiricists was his “Rejecting Innate Concepts argument”

the first premise is “If ideas are innate, they must be universally held in all minds” then premise

two “No idea is held universally in all minds” then with the first conclusion “No idea is innate”

the third premise is “Ideas are either innate or come from experience” conclusion one “No idea is

innate” and conclusion two “All ideas come from experience” Locke's universal concept

argument argues that if we were to hold innate ideas we’d all have to have one universally held

idea or concept, but he argues that we don’t all hold one universal concept or idea because there

isn’t something that we all know to be true. For example he’d argue that we don’t universally

know what’s right and wrong because ideas and concepts vary from person to person. We can

believe that we all universally know right and wrong but we know what right and wrong is based

on our environment and our experience with the concepts. The rules for what’s right and wrong

are different for each person. One person can believe that allowing people to die even if you

could help them is wrong and someone else wouldn't be concerned because of other reasons

behind it. If everything we know based on our experience and observation from the environment

around us there can be no innate ideas or concepts. This doesn’t only apply to right and wrong

but all other knowledge that we know, we can’t all hold one universally concept. All our

knowledge is based off our observation and sensory experience with the knowledge that we hold.
 The rationalist argument is the most plausible argument. This argument makes the most

sense because it explains and shows that humans can reason and come to a logical conclusion for

why things are the way they are. As humans we naturally question and wonder about the world

around us and try to come up with answers so the world doesn’t seem so chaotic and out of

order. If we tried to make sense of the world through our senses we wouldn't have the

explanations we have for things today. An example of this religion, it came about because

humans were trying to make sense of the world. If we take the idea of God from an empiricist

perspective we’d have to experience God's presence through our senses, like hearing, touching,

seeing God. Even though some may say that they’ve felt the presence of God, they didn’t

experience God through their five senese, an empiricist can’t say God exists without sensory

experiences of God. God exists to explain the things humans can’t explain like how did the earth

come about? Where do people go when they die? Etc. If the empiricist make the expectation for

God then their argument isn’t closed tight, they made a loophole. Rationalism makes sense

because to understand and know things you reason and come to a logical conclusion.

If your argue that “well, during Descarte and Locke time you had to believe in God or

they’d kill you” then let's take the idea of morals. You can’t use sensory experience to

understand morals, you could argue that you can observe the right and wrong morals like locke

would say, but morals are based on a foundation belief. Take human right morals for example,

Human rights aren’t something that vary from place to place, they way that they’re used and put

into action vary but the moral idea of human rights doesn’t. You know that ignoring one group to

help benefit other causes negative effects, you can say that you can observe that and understand
it but it’s part humans innate knowledge. You understand and know that treating others poorly

and harming them isn’t okay because of that innate human knowledge we have.

In conclusion rationalism is the most plausible, humans have innate knowledge and

knowledge we gain from our sensory experiences. Both play a role in the knowledge we

have/gained throughout or life. Descartes argument “I think therefore I am” is a good example of

why rationalism is the most plausible argument.