Empiricism and Rationalism

Marissa Nicolari

Philosophy 100-24N

Rex Gililand

Blog Post 2

For many years, philosophers have debated how ideas come to be. One viewpoint is of empiricism; empiricists believe that all ideas are formed via experience. The opposite viewpoint is of rationalism; rationalists believe that some ideas are innate to us while the rest of our ideas come to us via experience. Due to my  own experiences, I feel as though empiricism is a more plausible explanation for how ideas come to be. I believe that a person is not born with anything other than their instincts and emotions and every idea they have had has come from the experiences that they have been through or witnessed.

Descartes, a famed rationalist, counters this view with an example of wax. He describes a solid piece of wax using all of his senses. Then, he places the wax next to fire and the wax melts. He then describes the wax’s new form. He thinks that by changing the state of wax, but still being able to identify that it is the same piece of wax is a prime example that the idea of the wax itself was known in our mind regardless of the deception caused by our senses. This example, in his mind, shows that he did not know that the wax was the same piece of wax by observing it, only by inferring based on the fact that wax can have infinite properties. I disagree; physical changes do not determine whether an item has become a new item or not. For example, if a person whom is born with blonde hair then dyes their hair brown, it does not mean that they are a different person. The physical trait that changed did not change who the person was as a whole. Also, the only way a person would know the possible states and forms a piece of wax may take without becoming something entirely different would be through empirical observation. By observing that a block of wax changes from a solid state to a liquid state gaining and losing different physical attributes, we learn that wax can exist in more than one state. Without observing this change in the wax a person may never know that wax can have multiple different states and attributes.

In order to further my point that empiricism is a more feasible theory for the origin of ideas I will compare the two. When viewing both theories, it seems to be clear that rationalism contains more explanatory breadth than that of empiricism. The origins of many ideas can clearly be ascribed to an experience someone has had or observed, but when it comes to abstract concepts it is harder for an empiricist to give a general explanation for how those ideas came to be. Rationalists can use this disadvantage in order to show that their theory that some ideas are innate better explains the origin of abstract concepts. On the other hand, any idea that has come to mind via a person’s senses or observations are directly enforced by the empiricist viewpoint.  

Another way to compare the two is by measuring their explanatory depth. Rationalist explanations for the origins of ideas can be extremely confusing  and often times are not clear. Empiricists have the advantage that their explanations are often shallow and simplistic. Empiricism has more explanatory depth to their explanations because they can explain things in an accurate and simplistic manner.

With that being said, simplicity is another one of the ways we can compare the two theories to each other. Empiricism is far more simplistic than rationalism. Rationalists do not have one clear-cut theory as to how any and all idea comes to be because the innate ideas do not have an origin; empiricists are able to state that all and any idea has come from an empirical observation.

I would also go as far as to say that empiricism is the more conservative of the two theories. I believe this because it is easy to understand that a person acts, behaves, or responds in a certain way due to the experiences he or she has had. Because empiricism is a simpler way to explain the origin of ideas I believe it appeals to more people than rationalism. Often, when concepts are difficult to understand their uncomplicated counterviews become a more common view.

1. Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
2. Empiricism has less explanatory breadth than rationalism due to empiricist's lack of explanation for abstract concepts, but empiricism has far more explanatory depth, simplicity, and conservatism than rationalism.
3. Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.