Tyler Stevens
Philosophy 100
Professor Gilliland
14 October 2014
Rationalist
or Empiricist?
Philosophers
argue whether our ideas come from experience or more or less are innate. The
rationalists would argue that some ideas are innate and that the rest come from
experience, while empiricists would argue that all of our ideas come from
experience. In my opinion, the rationalistic point of view makes more sense,
because there are some ideas such as the ideas of hearing, seeing, breathing,
and swallowing. These ideas are essential to life, and are automatic functions
of a human body. The internal sensations of emotion and desire are rational
because they are human urges of attraction or even anger that has no reflection
on experiences you may have had in the past. The argument for empiricism is
that our thoughts and ideas are weaker and duller than impressions, and that
all of our thoughts and ideas can be analyzed into simple ideas originating in
experience. The thoughts and ideas that are considered to be empirical are
memories of occurrences in your lifetime, and products of the imagination.
The
ideas in which I feel are rational are things like knowing to scratch yourself
when you have an itch. The sensation triggers a reaction in the body to scratch
the area that is itchy. This does not come through experience; this is an
automatic response from the body telling you how to give relief to your itch.
Explanatory breadth- Although I
argued for rationalism earlier, I think empiricism has more explanatory breadth
than rationalism does because it can apply to much more than rationalism can. Rationalism
fails to address the theory of learning things, as you grow older. You are born
with a pretty much empty brain and learn from there, but I still believe some
things are innate.
Explanatory Depth- I think
rationalism has explanatory depth because morality is something that would fall
under explanatory depth and is something I believe to be rational because
having morals is something you know is right.
Simplicity- I think empiricism has
more simplicity because it is easier to form ideas from experience than the
rationalist point of view, rationalists have to form ideas based on nothing,
which makes it hard for them to have simplicity.
Conservatism- I think rationalism
is more conservative than empiricism because it can be something that fits our
own belief. If I have a belief in innate ideas stronger than empirical so I believe
that rationalism is conservative because It fits my beliefs more strongly.
1.Rationalism and empiricism are
the most plausible explanations of why we think the way we do.
2.Rationalism has much more
conservatism and explanatory depth whereas empiricism has a little more
explanatory depth.
3.Therefore rationalism is the best
explanation of why we think the way we do.
Tyler, I agree very much so on your standpoint that rationalism better explains where our ideas some from rather than empiricism. However there are some contradictions within your argument. Within the argument you have mentioned that both that rationalism has more explanatory depth then empiricism, and that empiricism has more explanatory depth then rationalism. Judging by the body paragraphs from your post, I think that you meant to say that empiricism has more explanatory depth than rationalism because empiricism explains how you further your ideas as you grow. But, rationalism does explain that as you grow you will form new ideas also. Rationalism does not argue that all ideas are innate, but just some in which rationalists believe in. So, if you do believe in this standpoint, you should also be able to believe that rationalism has a good amount of explanatory depth. therefore, if the idea you are looking for is about where ideas come from after the innate, you can still look to rationalism for an explanation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do feel that you explain your view on rationalism very clearly and well, I have a counterargument as to how you explained some ideas being innate. One of the first examples you used to argue for rationalism was knowing when to scratch yourself when something is itchy. I do think it is true that we all know to scratch something when it is itchy to us, however, I do not feel that it can be said that it is a result of rationalism. Itching something when you are itchy is an instinct. Instincts and innate ideas are not the same thing, so I don't feel that it is a really strong argument for rationalism. Instincts are natural behaviors we all have that we act on in response to stimuli, such as scratching. Things such as breathing, swallowing and other natural bodily functions result from instincts within all of us, not from innate ideas, Innate ideas focus more on the origins of certain things such as God, or how things came to be, not natural bodily functions.
ReplyDelete