Sarah Nelson
philosophy 100
Empiricism versus
rationalism, this debate is on where human ideas originate from or their causes.
Empiricists believe all ideas are born from experiences we have in life.
Alternately Rationalists believe that some ideas are born from experiences but
the difference is that there are some ideas we were already born with. I
believe that we learn from experience and so ideas are a result of that. This
explanation is more plausible than the view of the rationalists as we explore
the world through our five senses and trial and error.
When
younger we always come up with very generic ideas of what we want to be when we
get older. The ideas for the firefighter, doctor, or vet responses come from
experiences children have or seen. They can range from a family pet getting
sick and the vet knowing what to do to ameliorate the situation to watching a
fire fighter putting out a house fire. These experiences create memories which
give information to start ideas. Then if you look at inventions such as those
piggy banks children have that register what type of coin you put in. The idea
for that was founded in experiences. Throughout life we have experiences
dealing with money and change. We quickly learn the value of money and that we
should save it. We also have experienced saving money in a jar or container of
some sort. With those two experiences to draw upon that led someone to come up
with a smarter version of a piggybank.
When
it comes to wax we can understand things go through radical changes because we
have all seen ice melt. When it is cold we know that ice forms from water and
then goes through a radical change when the temperature rises. We have seen an
ice cube shrink when it’s melting and seen the growing puddle of water. Through
that experience we can grasp the idea of radical change.
For
Explanatory breadth I believe that they match each other when it comes to the
amount of idea origins as they cover the same basics. Their explanations differ
on some topics when it comes to ideas but they both cover all ideas even
including God.
For
explanatory depth I feel empiricism covers the origins of the idea of God more
adequately as described in the reading. Therefore it would also cover the
origins of ideas about paranormal phenomena better as well such as ghosts and
so forth. With empiricism the idea of ghosts would be founded in the question
of what happens after death when someone experiences the death of a family
member of friend.
Empiricism
has fewer parts- in other words it is more simplistic- as it covers all ideas under
one origin instead of just a portion like rationalism. Rationalism has two origins
for ideas therefore it allows for more possibility for contradiction.
Empiricism
is also more conservative as we place a lot of emphasis upon the scientific
method and proof for ideas and their viability.
Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible
explanation of the origins of ideas.
Empiricism
has much more conservatism, simplicity and explanatory depth.
Therefore
Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.
I like your example with the ice and water to show something going through a radical change. I disagree that it is both empiricism and rationalism. I think that empiricism explains the origin of more ideas than rationalism. This is because more ideas are learned from experience and can be explained.
ReplyDeleteWhen you state that empiricism has more explanatory depth due to the fact that it covers the origins of God more adequately than rationalism, I disagree. While I do accept that empiricism would cover the question of what happens after death, I do not believe that you could extend that into saying the empiricism would be able to give a conclusion on it. I say this because you cannot empirically gain evidence about this phenomena. The same would also be extended to the origins of God; it is not something that you can empirically test.
ReplyDelete