Rationalism and Empiricism

Sarah Costa
Blog Post 2
PHI 100 24N

Rationalism and empiricism are two different ideas on where our ideas stem from. Empiricists hold the belief that all of our ideas come from the experiences that we have in our life, while rationalists believe that only some ideas come from experience, while others are innate. I agree more with Hume's stance on empiricism over Descartes' thoughts on rationalism because I feel that our ideas come solely from our experiences throughout our lives. Because as young children we rely so much on our five senses to understand the world around us and formulate our own thoughts and ideas, I believe that it is more plausible that our ideas all come from experience.

As young children who are new to the world, we do not have ideas of our own because we have yet to experience much to allow us to formulate our own thoughts. Children rely on their five senses to allow them to learn about the things that they come in contact with in their world. For example, young children put things in their mouth or like to touch everything they see so that they can begin to understand different tastes, textures, and feelings. By having these experiences, whether it be putting a hard toy in their mouth, or touching a soft blanket, it allows them to create their own ideas on how they feel about what they are coming in contact with. In addition, children learn about shapes, sizes, and complexities through the different toys they play with and the experiences that they have with them. For example, children who play with the peg blocks where you have to put the correct shaped block into the matching shape peg allows children to understand the different shapes and sizes of things and how to put them together. Similarly, children learn that through playing with puzzles and trying to put the different colors and pieces together to create a picture. All of these experiences are things that children have very young that allow them to develop fundamental skills that allow them to continue to have more experiences that continue their growth for more ideas and understanding of the world around them.

With Descartes' wax example, we can understand how things can go through radical changes yet remain the same by seeing how a flame can grow into a fire, and then the fire into smoke as the ire dies out. We see how a flame can grow bigger into a fire with the help of oxygen and a flammable material such as a tree branch, showing how it is going through a radical change within the environment. Similarly, after a fire is burnt out, there may be some remaining smoke which shows how even after the flame and the fire are gone, there is still a lingering effect from the original flame which signifies how something can still remain the same after going through radical changes.

Empiricism better explains explanatory breadth because it explains the origin of more ideas than rationalism does by explaining how all of our thoughts or ideas, no matter how complex they may be, always come from previous ideas that came from earlier feelings or sensations that we experienced. It explains how if someone is unable to have a certain sensation due to blindness, deafness, etc., then they will never be found to have corresponding ideas to those experiences using those senses. It goes on to explain how if someone is cured of their illness or disability so that they are able to have those sensations and experiences, then they will also be able to get the ideas. I feel that, that concept shows how everything that we have an idea about can only stem from a corresponding experience that taught us that idea. Without the experience, there is no idea.

While both theories cover explanatory depth, rationalism better explains the theory by showing how there are two different ways to come to about ideas, innate and through experience whereas empiricism only believes in experience. Though I feel that empiricism does a better job at explaining certain origins, such as the origin of God by saying how God stems from the ideas of goodness and wisdom which can be found within our own minds, rationalism offers a wider view which can explain how ideas develop as we grow older, coming from innate ideas we were born with.

Empiricism is also much more simple because rationalism consists of two different concepts whereas empiricism is just one. Because empiricism has fewer parts and covers all origins under one, same ideas - ideas come from experience, it makes it much more simple and less likely to conceal errors. Rationalism is much more complex because there are two different parts, ideas that are innate and ideas that come from experience. This theory leaves much room for error because different ideas may come from two completely separate things.

Though both ideas could be considered conservative since each have their own set of followers and they have overlapping ideas, I think empiricism is more conservative since it doesn't leave as much room for error as it is more straightforward than rationalism is. Due to the emphasis on tangible experience to create ideas and it's focus on proof through science, empiricism is much more conservative to me.

Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, simplicity, and conservatism whereas rationalism has a little more explanatory depth.
Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.