Empiricism

Many people have argued where ideas come from. Rationalists argue that some ideas are innate and the others come from experience. On the other hand, Empiricists believe that no ideas are innate. All ideas come from experience. They believe knowledge is derived from sense- experience.

After closely researching the two theories, I have come to the conclusion that empiricism is more plausible than rationalism.  I do believe that certain emotions, instincts, and feelings are innate. For example, every human including infants, are born with the instinct to avoid coming in contact with fire. However, instincts, emotions, and feelings are not ideas. I do not believe that an infant has the knowledge to avoid touching a stove if another person does not tell them to do so. This is because they do not see the orange flames like they can in an actual fire and cannot feel the heat the stove gives off.  After the infant touches the stove and gets a burn, they will learn never to touch a stove again. This is the concept of empiricism. The infant will not truly grasp the idea that the stove is hot until they touch it for themselves. Rationalist may believe that the infant will know not to touch the stove from birth. However, how is this possible? The infant will only learn that the stove is hot by sense-experience.

Rene Descartes uses an example in his piece “Meditations on First Philosophy,” to explain that something can go through radical changes yet remain the same thing could be derived from experience. Descartes stated, “When was my perception of the wax’s nature more perfect and clear? Was it when I first looked into the wax, and thought I knew it through my senses? Or is it now, after I inquired more carefully into the wax’s nature and into how it is known?” Here, Descartes tries to explain that this is from a rationalist point of view. However, what he fails to realize is that the wax example he provided actually supports empiricism. This example shows the forms the wax can take is not something a person has the ability to understand until they experience it for themselves. It is not something a person is born with or can be taught from others. Descartes then goes on to explain the different forms the wax can take. He discussed how it can be melted and boiled. That it is flexible and changeable.  A person cannot teach another person about the piece of wax and that it is composed of the same material in solid and melted form. It needs to be taught through the person’s senses, imagination, and the mind itself. The combination of these allows the person to get the full concept of the always changing wax.   

            Explanatory breadth discusses how one theory explains the origin of more ideas than the other theory does. Also, it discusses what the other theory fails to address. Empiricism explains the origin of ideas much clearer than rationalism. Empiricism explains that ideas come from experiences. They must connect with the world around them through sight, touch, feelings, and smell. Rationalism fails to explain where the ideas originate. Rationalist try to prove that some ideas are innate. But they do not prove how this is the case. How is a person born with certain ideas? Where do they come from? Does a higher power or God give these people the ideas? Is everyone born with the same ideas? Also, why are some ideas innate, while others come from experience? This is what rationalism fails to address, making the theory unclear.

Explanatory depth explains that one theory states the origin of certain ideas in greater detail than the other theory does. In this case, empiricism is able to do this. It is much easier for empiricists to provide examples to prove their theory such as, my previous exampled used on infants getting burned by a stove. Many people can easily come up with their own examples to prove that ideas originate through experience. Rationalism fails to provide examples due to the fact that no one really knows whether or not a baby is born with certain ideas. No one can trace back to where the ideas came from, how they were developed.

Empiricism is very simple and has few parts to it. This makes it less likely to conceal hidden errors. Empiricist are able to state the origin of ideas and provide specific examples to support their claim. They do not leave anything up to the imagination. Rationalists do. This makes their theory much more complex. They cannot state the origin of ideas in more detail than just simply stating people are born with them. Many rationalists use their own opinions to support their clam. Finally, some rationalist confuse instincts, feelings, and emotions for ideas, which should never be mistaken.  These factors make the theory more likely to conceal hidden errors. This type of reasoning is called simplicity.

            Conservatism explains that a theory is more consistent with current beliefs than another theory. Rationalism is very consistent with our current, common, sense belief. In our culture today, it is expected of people to be born with some important ideas. People should not have to learn through experience to figure out these certain ideas.  Other ideas, which are less obvious will be learned as time goes on.

1.      Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.

2.      Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas Rationalism has a little more conservatism. 

3.      Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.