Erin O’Neill
Professor Gilliland
Blog Post 2
Empiricism
The debate between
Empiricists and Rationalists stems from the argument that one side(empiricists)
feels that the only way one can have any feeling or thoughts on a subject are
from ones that they have already experienced(we must have done something in
order to give input or feel something towards). While the other
hand(rationalists) feel that we learn and progress not only by our experiences
but other ways as well because some of the things we learn exceed the level of
information ones experience can deliver.
I would have to
say that I would take the side of the rationalists because I do agree with
instinct and feel that some things no matter how supposedly learned we are of
them we use a different sense. We use intuition which comes from something that
we didn't know we had. It allows us to tap into our inner self rather then what
we supposedly have learned. Although many people may say that they have
experience or have done something similar one must ask themselves this first.
When the first time occurred how did they know how to handle it then? That is
where intuition and something that one may just feel is right happened. One
does not have to experience something to have a feeling towards it. As for
ideas that I feel are innate I feel that just the thought of knowledge and what
is learned. One has to be uncertain about certain levels of knowledge and how
they are obtained. If one is not then it disproves everything essentially. I
for one am very skeptical of how everyone obtains their knowledge base; hence
why I side more with the rationalist side versus the empiricists view.
Hey Erin,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what you are saying in your blog. There are some things that some people are natrually good at. Everyone is good at something that someone isn't. I believe that you are correct in the fact that you do tap into your inner self and that you are able to find out what your good at and what your not.