Rationalism Vs. Empiricism

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Rationalism and Empiricism are two branches of philosophy born merely a century apart that come into conflict with each other due to the key differences between them. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher and the father of rationalism, developed his philosophy to express the relationships between ideas and other objects of consciousness. Empiricism on the other hand, included two important philosophers by the names of John Locke and David Hume. What's interesting about these two philosophers is that they disagreed on some aspects of their empiricist philosophy. However, it appeared as though the moderate empiricist philosophy of John Locke was better justified and proven than Hume's strict empiricist philosophy, in addition to that of Descartes rationalist philosophy. Thus, Descartes's and Hume's philosophy, bring up some ideas in their respective schools of thought that John Locke is able to reject and better cultivate by utilizing the ideas presented in his string of empiricism including the lack of innate knowledge, the lack of an essence behind objects, and the cause and effect relationship between ideas.

One of the greatest differences between rationalism and empiricism is the idea of innate knowledge; that is, knowledge that is already possessed by us when we are born. Descartes believes in the notion of innate knowledge and proves it in his philosophy by stating that there are certain ideas, such as the idea of God, that we carry that are neither adventitious nor invented. Adventitious ideas pertain to ideas from sense experience and invented ideas are ideas that we make up ourselves. Therefore, they must be innate ideas. Both Locke and Hume reject this idea of innate knowledge by stating that when we are born, we are born blank slates, and that any idea that we will ever come to possess will be the product of sensation or reflection; sensation being any stimulation by the senses from experience, and reflection being the actual process of the mind thinking, judging, and understanding. However, in this aspect, Locke and Hume differ a bit. Locke says what has just been said; that ideas come from either sensation or reflection. Hume opposes this by saying the ideas come from either impressions or experiences. In retrospect, Locke's notion of sensation is basically the same thing as Hume's notion of impression, except Hume states that the impression of something comes from an object, and that impressions are separate from experience. Locke simply bridges the gap between sensation and experience, which Hume does not. Empiricism denies the presence of innate knowledge, by making apparent that ideas arise purely from sensation, reflection, impressions, or experience. However, Locke's explanation of how the idea of innate knowledge is flawed, is better made clear in his discussion than Hume's, because he is able to point out the relationship between sensation and reflections, which Hume fails to do effectively with his view on impressions and experiences.

Another difference between these two philosophies is the belief in an essence behind objects. Basically, the idea of an essence or a form behind all objects was believed in each and every philosophy from Plato all the way up to Descartes. Empiricism was the first philosophy that contested this belief. Empiricism argues that any and all essence is derived from experience. Hume, being the radical empiricist that he is, rejects the essence and forms behind things. Locke also denies the existence of essences and forms, yet on a lower magnitude than that of Hume. Instead, empiricism employs the bundle theory. What this theory states is that an object is a bundle of physical characteristics, lacking an essence or a form of any kind. This is really where Hume's strict empiricist nature truly comes to light. One of the conclusions he reaches is that science and all things relating to science can be disproved. According to the bundle theory, an object is a mass of physical characteristics. Gravity, for example, is not a physical, tangible object. Since the bundle theory suggests that objects are made up of purely physical characteristics, there is no way that gravity could exist, or be real at all for that matter. Interestingly enough, science has been disproved by the logic Hume uses. This is arguably a statement