Rationalism and Empiricism

Ashli Benbow

Professor Rex

Blog Post 2

13 October 2014

Empiricists at Heart

            Empiricism believes that all ideas come from experience you have, not something you always have. Rationalism believes that sometimes ideas are something that you've always had and the rest you develop ideas from experience you get. In this case this debate is about which one is more plausible? Empiricism is the more plausible than Rationalism because when you look into Tabula Rasa it says that your mind is blank until you have experience which I believe is completely true. So that when you're born your mind is completely blank until you have gotten out in the world to have experience.

            We all have our own ideas that we make up in our mind. Whether it was what we wanted to be once we got older or the next invention. Our ideas are sprung off the experience we gain from growing up, widening our eyes, and trying new things. We can prove how we achieve our ideas, proving that empiricism is in fact true, we rely on the things around us to help us discover who we are or who we desire to be. 

            The wax example is merely a example of several things that have radical changes. Something that has a radical changes is something that once was hot but now is cold. If you boil water, it is still water, just as it is when you leave it outside sitting or put it in the fridge to get cold. The temperatures are different but the liquid is still the same. Due to personal manipulation a more concrete idea is formed.  If someone told me melted wax can be formed into anything but still remains wax presents a different personal experience from me doing it myself. 

For Explanatory breadth I feel as if they both share origin of ideas equally. Whether if it's from experiencing things on a daily basis or if you believe that your ideas are something that was always there. Ideas are ideas, they are the same thing no matter how you want to put it, it's how and where you develop your ideas that makes it different.

For Explanatory depth I believe that empiricism show ideas in more details because as you see in the reading people believe that God is the first movement, things in motion had to be created by someone, someone bigger than us humans. So to them God must exists. There is proof that someone greater than us had to create the universe, someone set the first motion. 

For Simplicity empiricism is more simplistic because it really has only one effect, like the example from the reading where there is a watch on the floor and the only plausible reason for the watch to be on the floor because someone must have been there. Like in the other reading when Paley steps on the stone, the stone is so simple, but when he found the watch, he was so fascinated on how intricate it was, that it was too complex. 

For Conservatism empiricism is more conservative because we always look for more details, for the proof and the truth. 

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

2. Empiricism has much more explanatory depth, simplicity, and conservatism

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