Rationalism And Rationalism

Rationalism And Rationalism
Prompt 3 Philosophy can be divided into Metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics is concerned
with what is to be? While epistemology is concerned with concrete knowledge and with "what is
knowledge"? In other words, what can be known, how it came to be known, and the source of
knowledge is epistemology. Empiricism and rationalism both deal with the epistemology branch of
philosophy. Even more specifically, rationalism and empiricism are concerned with how knowledge
is gained. Rationalism argues that knowledge is innate and harbored in the human mind before birth,
in a sort of pre–existence. An example of this would be when Plato tried to illustrate innate
knowledge by showing that a boy constructed a square of twice the size of a ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Empiricism makes more sense to me, but maybe that is because I was brought up in a world always
obsessing over the materialistic and hard concrete data or statistics. The idea that sensory perception
and experiences contribute to knowledge in the fullest makes the most logical sense to me because
that is how anyone has ever mastered a certain field or area. No one had the innate knowledge of
surgeon or a carpenter, for example. Some things are innate but it would be complicated to classify
what is for certain. Another problem with rationalism is where this hidden innate knowledge
originated from. This sort of knowledge is not tangible and it would prove very difficult to provide
an answer to the source of a pre–existing knowledge. We are born not knowing. Think of anyone
who has learned a serious profession; this profession or skill was not drawn out of them due to it
being innate but was rather incorporated into their minds where it settled and stuck into the long
term memory of the brain. I can think of philosophy as an example. I know for a certainty that the
teachings of the Socrates Plato and Aristotle was never an innate knowledge within me. It could
have been possible I thought of the same questions these men asked and came up with a somewhat
similar answer, but I never came up or drew out the exact philosophy or exact ways of thinking
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Empiricism Vs. Positivist Theory Of Knowledge
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that evaluates the acquisition, limitations, and origins of
human knowledge. One of the theories found in epistemology is the theory of empiricism.
Empiricism is the belief that knowledge is gained through experience, that there is no such thing as
"innate knowledge," or knowledge that one is born with. Empiricism stands in stark contrast to the
rationalist theory, the belief that humans possess innate knowledge, and that one can have
knowledge, without sensory information or experience, through reason. In this paper I will evaluate
the theory of empiricism, comparing it to rationalism and discussing advantages and disadvantages
of the empiricists perspective on the acquisition of knowledge, and then I will discuss why I
consider empiricism the superior theory of knowledge. One of the main critiques of the empiricist
theory is that it is derived strictly from sensory information. Any knowledge that we may possess is
strictly from the experiences we have had in our lifetime. This is a problem that rationalists have
with empiricism. Rene Descartes, mathematician and father of modern philosophy, argues that our
senses cannot be trusted, and that they are easily deceived (Epistemology, slides 26–28). Not unlike
Descartes, it is common for mathematicians to subscribe to the side of rationalism in regard to the
acquisition of knowledge. This is not surprising as most of mathematics involve concepts that are
known to be universally true

Cartesian Rationalism Vs. Locke 's Empiricism Essay
Running Head: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Introduction to Philosophy Name Institution
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Cartesian rationalism vs. Locke's empiricism
Rene Descartes was a rationalist who believed that knowledge of the world can be gained by the
exercise of pure reason, while empiricist like Locke believed that knowledge of the world came
through senses. Descartes from his meditations deduced from intuitive first principles the existence
of self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance and the extended body as a material substance
whereas Locke, asserts that knowledge is acquired through perception, direct sensory of the world,
reflections, the mental processes of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and
comparing them, conceptualizing them and recommending them to form new philosophies.
The two philosophers namely Descartes and Locke vary greatly on the issue of the source of
knowledge. Descartes doesn't believe in knowledge arising from experience while Locke also
doesn't agree with the issue of the existence of inherent ideas in the mind. Both Descartes and Locke
are skeptics about the possibility of certain knowledge. Descartes is a rationalist who believes that
there is definitely certain knowledge and human reasoning is the only source of that knowledge
while Locke

Colonial Period Focused Around God and Church Essay
In the colonial period, America was just starting to form and the people were just beginning to
brainstorm ways of uniform life to live. Many looked to religion and focused their writing to center
around God while others believe in Rationalism and the arts of "Science, Ethics, and Government".
American literature seemed to have three staple points that defined the times: God and religion
(Puritanism), creation stories, and finally Rationalism.
The biggest focus in colonial American culture centered around God and the church. People devoted
their writing and lives to a religion that was formed around the new testament of the bible because
there was a common belief that "uniform religion made a society". These people were called
Puritans, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In colonial American culture, the big focus was around serving God and being pure so that you did
not suffer the wrath when your time on earth was up.
Another big part of colonial American Culture was creation stories, specifically from the American
Indians. While European Americans believed in the Christian God, American Indians focused more
around nature. They believed that entities from the sky and ground found ways to create the society
that came to be. For example, one myth that was studied was "The Sky Tree" where the piling of dirt
upon a turtle's back created the earth.
Finally, there were the Rationalist. The rationalists believe in the world now instead of books and
religions from times ago. Rationalist believe in rights, reasons, and laws so that the progression of
the people on earth lead to the progress of change for the better–– "social evils could be corrected,
superstition and ignorance ended, and general quality of existence improved". A good example of
Rationalism is the writing of Benjamin Franklin, who wrote about virtues that would help him to
achieve moral perfection. This exemplifies the idea of Rationalism–– leading the human race to
perfection by using the here and now instead of religion.
Puritanism, Creation stories, and Rationalism were the biggest parts of the colonial period. They led
America to be more creative and think about their past. Through religion, myths of our past, and
reason Americans got a foothold on the

The Republicn and a Brief History of Philosphy
In The Republic there are six reoccurring themes education, justice, specialization, philosopher–
king, soul, and truth. Plato uses justice though as the folk point and the remaining five trace back to
justice. Socrates defines justice as "that one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which
his nature was best adapted" (Plato 123). Socrates then goes to discuss the three parts to the soul, "A
man reasons, we may call the rational principle of the soul, the other... may be termed the irrational
or appetitive" and then there is the spirit (Plato 130). Kant proposes that justice "says that only good
people should be happy, and happy in proportion to their goodness" (Gustafson 67). Plato and
Socrates saw justice as giving what is owed, while Kant saw justice as being happy in proportion to
their virtue. Yet each strived for justice and look to eliminate the injustices in the world. These
themes and ideas were not just something that once occurred and then no one thought of again.
These themes still play a role in everyday life, some more predominate then others but apparent just
the same. In the film Crimes and Misdemeanors the view is introduced to a group of people with all
different struggles. As the movie progresses the characters dive deeper into their hardships, and
some may never be able to get out of them. This film deals with many of the ideas that Plato speaks
about. The theme of justice is one that is featured as the most important in the film. Secondary to

The Enlightenment By Locke, Paine, And Kant
The Enlightenment was a cultural movement that swayed people who initially made decisions based
on their faith to making decisions based on reason. It seems effortless but in reality it changed the
game for many people back then. Even today, people do crazy things because of their faith and if
asked to justify themselves, they would not be able too. People brave enough to understand this new
paradigm shift like Locke, Paine, and Kant influenced society with their new fascinating
philosophies that have influenced us till today. What they did not realize is how corrupt the
development of reason would become. Rousseau understood reason and never denied it but also saw
its future, which is why he chose compassion over reason. Through Locke's, Paine's and Kant's
examples we can understand that there was nothing wrong with reason until society took advantage
of it and made it unethical; its clash with faith and a person's emotions is unveiled beautifully by
Rosseau and that would be society's definite way to go if we desired to stand by our moral virtues.
Locke looked at the world from the point of view of his senses, and he wanted to understand how an
individual's senses may alter the world to one versus another. "Our observation, employed either
about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and
reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of
thinking." (An Essay Concerning Human

Constructivism Essay
Empiricists and rationalists have proposed opposing theories of the acquisition of knowledge, which
appear unable to coexist. Each theory holds its own strengths but does not demonstrate a strong
argument in itself to the questions, "Is knowledge truly possible?" and "How is true knowledge
obtained?". Immanual Kant successfully merged the two philosophies and provided a convincing
argument with his theory of empirical relativism, or what some may call constructivism. His theory
bridges the gap between rationalism and empiricism and proves that empiricists and rationalists each
present a piece of the full puzzle. In order to truly understand Kant's epistemology, one must first
review and understand both empiricism and rationalism on an ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This initiates the principle of induction, which is the assumption that the future will be like the past.
An example of this would be every time smoke is seen, one will inevitably look for the fire that is
causing the smoke. This is because based on previous experiences, it is known to be true that fire
causes smoke. One notable problem with pure empiricism is that it does rely upon reasoning. If the
concept of causality is true, there must be some form of reasoning to be able to relate one action to a
reaction. Hume's principle of induction assumes that one experience will be similar to a previous
experience under similar circumstances. It takes a measure of reasoning to assume that the previous
experience of dropping a glass would result in the same consequence when dropping a vase. To
account for this, Hume believes that reason draws connections between concepts in the mind, but it
cannot form connections between those ideas in the external world (Lawhead, 2010). Hume divided
reasoning into 2 categories: namely, relations of ideas and matters of fact. "This dichotomy between
relations of ideas (which are logically necessary, but tell us nothing about the world), and matters of
fact (which tell us about the world, but which are not certain), is often called 'Hume's fork'"
(Lawhead, 2011, p. 108).
Rationalism
In contrast to empiricism, rationalists claim that knowledge is gained from reasoning. It is through
reason that the

Rene Descartes : Rationalism As The Primary Source Of...
Rationalism or rationalism is an intellectual tendency that sees reason as the primary source of
knowledge, the basic tool of manifestation, the standard between good ideas and misconceptions,
between good deeds and bad deeds, and the only platform we look at. Rene Descartes is one of the
most prominent pioneers of this doctrine. The most important priorities are:
– The mind has innate and tribal principles prior to each experience, and is not generated by the
sense, it is clear and simple without fault, and as a result of this knowledge arises and consists of the
correct ideas, such as the principle of the identity that the thing is always the same, and not be
another thing, The principle of non–contradiction, which says that the two contradictions do not
meet together, and the principle of the attic, that every bug has an explanation and for all those who
are wrong, and innate and intuitive ideas of the existence of God, and the existence of the self that
comes from thinking, Descartes says,
– Our knowledge of the reality of things does not depend on the senses, but on the activity of the
mind because the senses do not achieve the abstract knowledge needed by thinking, that the thinking
is based on the faculties are abstract images aware of the mind such as the image of the human and
animal image and the image of metal ... etc., while the senses do not Understand only the particles
The senses are an unreliable source, and the best proof of this is visual deception. Do not

Aristotle 's Theory And Rationalism
Aristotle looked up into the night sky at the stars that poked holes in the darkness and wondered. He
particularly wondered about the universe and how it works. How the bodies in the sky move and
how the Earth moves if it does at all. But how was he to discover answers to these questions? Galen
defined two methods of determining an answer to a problem. The first is called Empiricism, which
mainly focuses on observation alone. Empiricists believe that the only things that are reliable are our
senses and past experiences. On the contrary, Rationalists believe that after they observe, they must
use logic and reason to further understand the causes (Galen, 1985). In the end, Aristotle used
elements of both empiricism and rationalism to support his claims about how the universe works.
Aristotle uses observation quite often, just as the Empiricists do, to begin his arguments. They
specifically believe that knowledge of the world comes from our senses, past experiences, and
observations (Galen, 1985). When introducing a point Aristotle says, "The heaviest thing will be that
which sinks to the bottom of all things that move downward, and the lightest that which rises to the
surface of everything that moves upward" (Aristotle, 1922, p. 3). Here, Aristotle is using what he
has observed in the world to base his argument. This, for all intents and purposes, is what
Empiricists believe should be used and nothing more can be reliably used. This is one of the best
way to support your

Compare and contrast the significance for psychology of...
Compare and contrast the significance for psychology of Descartes and Kant
Descartes and Kant, both of them are famous philosophers and they are well known for their
contributions to philosophy. At the same time, they have great influence on the development of
psychology. I am going to compare their significance of psychology.
By observing some mechanical things, Descartes had an idea that human and animal work like
automata. (Klein, 1970) This idea became a basic concept of Descartes' theories of the brain and
visual perception. He thought that the human mind and body were separate from each other. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To Descartes, this was pineal body which is located roughly in the centre of the brain, near the
thalamus. He thought that the soul resided in pineal body. (Klein, 1970) Descartes mentioned that
the soul "is of a nature entirely independent of the body, and consequently not liable to die with
body."(Klein, 1970, p.349) Descartes posited the existence of soul. However, Kant believed that all
observation is observation of phenomena. The substantiality of soul is never observed. (Klein, 1970)
Kant said "......so far as I think myself, it is really impossible by that simple self–consciousness to
determine the manner in which I exist, whatever as substance or as an accident. Thus, if materialism
was inadequate to explain my existence, spiritualism is equally insufficient for that purpose, and the
conclusion is, that, in no way whatsoever can we know anything of the nature of our soul, so far as
the possibility of its separate existence is concerned." (Klein, 1970, p.493) Kant concluded that
human knew nothing about their soul and it cannot be studied by any scientific methods, while
Descartes posited the existence of soul and know the real location where the soul resided.
Descartes stated some theory of perception and let people know how things can be perceived. This is
a profound impact on psychology. Descartes was a rationalist. One of the tenets of Rationalism
stated that senses deceive and do not trust them. (Klein, 1970)

Propelling Rational Thought Over Compelling Empiricism
Propelling Rational Thought over Compelling Empiricism
Aaron Nicely
Intro to Philosophy
02–09–2016
In this paper I intend to examine the rationalist philosophy of Rene Descartes and fundamental
empiricism of John Locke's philosophical arguments, in particular their ideas relating to the science
of man, his identity and attempt to explain distinctions between the two. As I lay the framework of
my argument it is important to understand the precepts that serve as the underpinning for the views
considered by Descartes and Locke respectively. Rationalism and empiricism are two modes of
thought that have been adopted within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying
the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. In fact, other than the ties to epistemology the two
schools of thought are very plainly much like Descartes and Locke, the direct opposite of each other.
Rationalism is the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and
knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. Empiricism on the other hand is the
theory that all knowledge is derived from sense–experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental
science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke. While
John Locke convincingly asserts and defends the empiricist's belief that sense perception is the main
source of knowledge and thereby personal identity. My views regarding consciousness and self are
in

Epistemology is the arm of philosophy concerned with the...
Epistemology is the arm of philosophy concerned with the study of knowledge and beliefs. The
study first explains the understanding of what constitute knowledge and how to distinguish when
someone does something and when one does nothing. Additionally, it examines the extent of use of
human knowledge and how one can use reason, senses, past work and resources to acquire specific
knowledge. Epistemology seeks to know whether there are limits to acquisition and use of
knowledge. It provides answers to the question of the necessary and sufficient conditions that make
up knowledge and their sources. The study also examines the limits and structure of knowledge in
understanding justifications and whether justifications are internal or external ... Show more content
To the rationalists, sense knowledge is derived from reason. External proofs like physical
characteristics are not necessary to ascertain truths. Reason is more significant in our concepts and
knowledge.
Empiricism on the other hand, bases knowledge on sense experience and testing. This is a deviation
from rationalism that believed in the mind as the main source of knowledge and beliefs. This school
of thought believes that all beliefs and knowledge that can be considered acceptable are only
justified through experience. Concepts are a posteriori knowledge and can only be applied from the
senses on the basis of experience. Information on any component of knowledge and beliefs is
obtained posteriori rather than priori. Knowledge of words is only meaningful as long as it conveys
concepts and all concepts are only reviewed by past experience. The passage clearly outlines the
knowledge behind empiricism. It perceives the mind as white paper free of any characters. It
attributes experience as the source of knowledge to furnish this blank piece of paper. It specifically
attributes experience and observations as the source of knowledge in comparison to rationalism that
relies on reason and the mind. Although rationalism believes in the inner self and mind as the basis
of knowledge, empiricism perceives external factors far from the personal mind and perception.
Although the mind is involved in creation of knowledge, it is more as a memory of past experience
and

Assess The Difference Between Empiricists And Rationalists
Where do our ideas come from? Where do our facts and information come from? What is
knowledge? How do we learn? These are just a few of the questions epistemology attempts to
answer and is the highlight of one of the major clashes in the history of philosophy – the difference
of opinions between rationalists and empiricists. Empiricism is the theory that the inception of all
knowledge is through experience sensed via the five senses – sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch.
Rationalism is the theory in philosophy which claims that reason is the ultimate source of human
knowledge. Rationalists and empiricists take contrary ideas on how knowledge is attained. The
argument between rationalist and empiricist philosophers looks at the nature of knowledge, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He begins his argument with observations of the wax in different states which he can only do by
using his senses – empirical data. This shows how easily our senses help to establish our assessment
of corporeal things. Without the senses he would never have been able to have made those
observations and so if his conclusion is true he has weakened his own argument. This "mind–body
dualism" presented by Descartes – the concept that mind and body are distinct –does not explain the
interaction between mind and body. If mind are body are separate entities, and for his theory to hold,
Descartes must provide a causal interaction between the mind and body – between the physical and
metaphysical.
I feel that Descartes underestimated the role of the senses as it pertains to knowledge. The senses by
themselves are insufficient to define knowledge since they are often deceived as Descartes
expressed in the "Wax Argument". However, our senses do help us understand the true nature of
things.
It seems reasonable that perception is a mixture of both the intellect and the senses. Also, Descartes
does not bother to differentiate between certain qualities and qualities in general. When the wax
melts, the color may change and the size may decrease to some extent, but the wax still maintains

Essay about Empiricist vs. Rationalist
Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience.
Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used
by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays
"The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of
knowledge.
Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it
would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate
ideas then they would be universal ideas present ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes as a rationalist believes that knowledge comes from the mind alone. During the First
Meditation, Descartes came to the conclusion that there must be some kind of evil deceiver that
"leads him to a state of doubt" (Descartes 77). Descartes starts out with the fact that distant
sensations are subject to doubt and uncertainty. He then goes on to try and cast doubt onto close
sensations. Descartes starts off by stating that close sense perception must be certain because we are
not crazy, and only a insane person would doubt what was right in front of them. Descartes then uses
the dream argument to cast uncertainty on close sense perception because "they are as lively, vivid
and clear as reality is when we are awake" (Descartes 76). Descartes then states that geometry and
math are certain. "For whether I am awake or sleeping, two and three added together always make
five, and a square never has more than four sides; and it does not seem possible that truths so
apparent can be suspected of any falsity or uncertainty" (Descartes 98). Descartes comes to realize
this certainty because math, geometry, and the simple sciences can be understood and proved
through logic and reasoning. He then uses his Deceiver Argument to cast doubt on close sensations.
He questions how we know for certain that God is good, and how we know that

Descartes v Hume Essay
The concept of self identifies the essence of one's very being. It implies continuous existence having
no other exact equal, i.e. the one and only. Whether or not the specific characteristic(s) used to
define self are objectively real, i.e. physical attributes, or purely subjective, i.e. imaginary traits, the
concept makes distinct one entity from another. Rationalism is the theory that truth can be derived
through use of reason alone. Empiricism, a rival theory, asserts that truth must be established by
sensual experience: touch, taste, smell, et al. Rene Descartes, a philosopher and rationalist
concluded that one self was merely a continuous awareness of one's own existence; one's substance
was one's ability to think. On the other ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He reasoned that our senses often misinterpret the physical world, e.g. we sometimes see things that
aren't actually there or perceive things differently from different distances. Bodily senses are a
means of perceiving the external world, but since we know our senses can be false or misleading,
we can doubt our bodies as being a source of truth. In addition, Descartes claimed that we often
sense things that don't physically exist in the external world. For example, while dreaming we can
see, smell, hear, taste and feel. If senses are a means of perceiving the external world, yet we can't
positively distinguish a dream from reality, it's possible that the external world could be completely
imaginary. Since we can sense things without bodies, it's impossible to be certain that bodies
actually exist since sensual experiences are essentially the proof of bodily existence. What's not
impossible is that an evil genius may have created our senses with the illusion of an outside world
just to mislead us, and or fool us into believing that we have bodies. Though highly improbable, the
idea of a very powerful evil genius cannot be disproven beyond any doubt, so it's certainly possible
that such a being may potentially exist. In Meditation II, Descartes fully rejects the notion of bodily
senses, but concludes that he himself does actually exist.

Crime and Punishment by Theodore Dostoevsky
The ability to think logically and emotionally is a rare combination in any person. People do not
typically posses both traits and identify themselves as either rationalists or anti–rationalists.
Rationalists believe that their opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge. They
are not generally the most religious people as they cannot rely on blind faith to guide them, but
instead crave a logical explanation for every aspect of their life. On the other hand, blind faith is
almost essential for an anti–rationalist. They do not require a scientific theory to know that their
beliefs are valid. Anti–rationalists boldly deem reason and intellect as unimportant when applied to
real–life situations, while emotions and morality are held to higher standards within their group. It is
all too clear that rationalism and anti–rationalism beliefs contradict each other, making it difficult
for reason and emotions to coexist. However, it is not impossible to find a perfect balance of the
two, it is just improbable. Fyodor Dostoevsky understood this human flaw, and focused his criticism
on rationalism to demonstrate the type of chaotic results that anti–rationalists do not experience.
Through the use of the characters Luzhin, Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov, Sonya, and Dunia in his novel
Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky advanced the belief that pushing theories to an extreme would
generate detrimental consequences and a balance of the principles is best for human
accommodations.

Fundamental Differences Between Rationalism And Empiricism
Select two of the five prompts below. The first prompt must be from group A and the second prompt
must be from group B. Each response should be in your own words and be a minimum of 150
words.
Use the content of the philosophical readings in your textbook to prepare your responses. Cite
appropriately and refer to the "Writing Philosophically" article from Lesson 1 for writing guidelines.
Grading A
Carefully explain the fundamental differences between rationalism and empiricism. Identify one
rationalist and discuss his/her theory. Identify one empiricist and discuss his/her theory. Which one
most closely resembles your "ways of knowing" and why? Explain how the study of epistemology
contributes to your understanding of your world.
Empiricism is the theory that emphasizes that knowledge is completely or primarily derived from
sensory experience. Empiricist believe that all knowledge must be verified by sensory experience
through surveillance of the natural world, rather than merely relying on revelation, reasoning, a
priori, or intuition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism (Hallman, pg. 717) While rationalism
is the philosophical belief that truth or knowledge is intellectual, not sensory and that we gain
knowledge through the use of logic. (Hallman, pg. 721) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Rationalism focuses primarily on contemplation, reason, and intuition rather than on sensory
experience.
John Locke (1632–1704) is an empiricist who believes that all of

The Ideals of Rationalism
The Rationalists are right to claim that knowledge is a priori and depends primarily on reason.
Discuss.
There is not one definition of rationalism because it means so many different things. The
Rationalists believe that knowledge is gained a priori or independently of experience. You know that
4 + 3 = 7, and that this won't change wherever or you go to another country or to the moon.
Knowledge of the world is gained through rational intuition (clear and distinct idea) and reasoning
& understanding. A priori knowledge can be a hundred percent certain and is necessarily true.
A priori can be divided into four types: Prior to experience, which means that you have the
knowledge before any experience. This is innate knowledge. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes' Wax example is a good example of how our a priori knowledge depends on reason. You
know about wax, that it is yellow, doesn't have any smell, hard, solid, tasteless and scratchable etc.
and that it gets squashy and lighter when warmed up. These sense experiences alone cannot account
for our understanding because it is just a stream of incoming data. This proves that the mind must
have innate abilities to form understanding when sense data is fed into it. It is the same with another
example of Descartes about people in the street seen from above. His claims are that our sense
experience tells us that there are hats and coats moving below. Our reasoning and understanding
tells us they are people.
In my opinion Rationalists are not always right to claim that knowledge is a priori and depends
primarily on reason. In my opinion, you need to experience certain things before you can reason and
understand it. For instance, if you haven't been to the Isle of Wight Festival, but you know what kind
of music the bands are playing and you know what people are going, it doesn't make you know what
the festival is like. This makes me closer to empiricism.
On the other hand, though empiricism says that you know that 3 + 4 = 7 because you were taught
this, I believe you have this is a priori knowledge primarily because of reason. I believe the

The concept of human nature focuses on the distinctive...
The concept of human nature focuses on the distinctive natural characteristics of humans, namely
the ways we feel, think and act, regardless of external forces as well as influences. Within the study
and discipline of Philosophy, this fundamental nature of humans and our existence is scrutinized.
Philosophy involves a continuous search and lookout for an accurate understanding of the
underlying traits of humankind that are deemed to be common among all humans. Starting with the
ancient philosophers and ending with the contemporary thinkers, a bridge of suppositions that
seemingly define human nature has been established, despite the fact that there are vital differences.
Numerous conjectures and theories have been put forward by ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Their disagreement revolves around the extent of the senses' contribution to knowledge, which leads
to an epistemological debate. Rationalists distrust the senses, however, in reality the senses are all
we have and this is what Kant asserts. Kant makes it clear that both rationalists and empiricists
disregard or rather miss the fact that the human mind is restricted and these limitations can be
described as synthetic and a priori. According to Kant, every possible experience of ours is
constrained and structured by synthetic a priori restrictions, specifically space, time and causality
and since these limitations are present, we have to take it upon ourselves to differentiate between the
phenomenal and noumenal – the apparent and the real world. Kant asserted that the human mind is
an active organ and knowledge begins with experience, but as opposed to the belief of the
empiricists, we do not merely experience the world, we understand experiences through processes of
the mind and acquire knowledge from these processed experiences. Prior to Kant, the common
belief was that knowledge must conform and be consistent with objects, however, Kant contended
that objects must conform to knowledge, which is once again structured by synthetic a priori
limitations of space, time and causality. The human mind is restricted to knowing only of
appearances and never the real

John Locke : An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
John Locke published in 1690 a twenty year long masterpiece, which ultimately becomes the
masterwork of this great philosopher, titled as An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. This
philosophical treatise took twenty years to complete when he began his work on The Easy in 1670.
Locke composed The Essay in order to formulate what it is and is not likely attainable for us to
fathom and perceive. John Locke's aim was not to establish utmost certainty, but to fathom the
amount of substance we can distribute to distinctive categories of knowledge. What is knowledge
according to John Locke? Locke went about answering this question by splitting up his
philosophical essay into four books, where the first three provided the infrastructure for the
arguments set out in Book IV. Do we enter this world with a mind that is a blank slate or is a person
born into this world equipped with knowledge? Paramount to Locke's discourse during the whole of
the Essay is the notion that when an individual born into this world their mind is a blank slate.
Locke argued that all of our knowledge is from information one collects from the five senses – we
enter this world knowing nothing – experience is our master teacher and imparts knowledge. This is
the underlying score of empiricism that is so often contributed to Locke, a philosophical theory in
contrast to innatism – the theory that knowledge is inborn – and to rationalism where the attain
knowledge of reality through the power of reason apart

John Locke : An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
John Locke published in 1690 a twenty yearlong masterpiece, which ultimately becomes the
masterwork of this great philosopher, titled as An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. This
philosophical treatise took twenty years to complete when he began his work on The Easy in 1670.
Locke composed The Essay in order to formulate what it is and is not likely attainable for us to
fathom and perceive. John Locke's aim was not to establish utmost certainty but to fathom the
amount of substance we can distribute to distinctive categories of knowledge. What is knowledge
according to John Locke? Locke went about answering this question by splitting up his
philosophical essay into four books, where the first three provided the infrastructure for the
arguments set out in Book IV. Do we enter this world with a mind that is a blank slate or is a person
born into this world equipped with knowledge? Paramount to Locke's discourse during the whole of
the Essay is the notion that when an individual born into this world their mind is a blank slate.
Locke argued that all of our knowledge is from information one collects from the five senses – we
enter this world knowing nothing – experience is our master teacher and imparts knowledge. This is
the underlying score of empiricism that is so often contributed to Locke, a philosophical theory in
contrast to innatism – the theory that knowledge is inborn – and to rationalism where the attain
knowledge of reality through the power of reason apart

Immanuel Kant 's Philosophy On Philosophy
People were lost. They did not know where and what to follow. Therefore, many philosophers came
up with ideas to convince people to live ¨better¨. Rationalism related with the overview of
mathematical approaches into philosophy during the period by the major rationalist figures such as
Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza developed people´s way of thinking in many different ways.
Rationalism is perspective which engages the rational and deductive reason, an opposite structure
from personal experience or teachings as the foundation of knowledge or rationalization. Therefore,
the concept of rationalism relies on the knowledge that everyday life has a rational configuration in
that all aspects of it can remain through facts and knowledge. Proverbs ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Kant refused the arguments from the empiricists, and kept his statement of reason itself is organized
with practices of gained experience and classifications that provides a phenomenal and rational
configuration to any possible item of empirical experience. Kant's famous statement of this duty
says, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law."
Lastly, the perception of Romanticism appeared in encounter with the Enlightenment within the
society. The concept was too vague. Philosophers indicated human nature as constant being. The
concept of Romanticism had also confronted the culture of church because it disagreed with the
thought of human intention and the enlightenment. The philosophers of Romanticism argued and
stopped certain church movement due to their various types of emotions and inspiration.
Romanticism influenced the society in many religious ways. It mainly served for Roman
Catholicism through its exterior characteristic. Romanticism also emphasized individualism. When
God told the world to serve one another, Romanticism tried to solve the problem alone.
God has allowed freedom of will to all human, yet He specifically stated to live to glorify His name.
John 14:13–14 says, and I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified
in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I

Rationality Vs. Rational Rationality
Rationality, a vague term that is heavily used in classic economic theory as well as planning theory,
represents a 'virtue' that maximize the utility. There are basically two types of rationality, one is pure
rationality, the other one is pragmatic rationality. The pure rationality, often called objective
rationality, however, is an unreachable, ideal status that requires perfect knowledge.(Brooks 2002)
The pragmatic rationality, which as its name implies, leans more toward daily use. To achieve the
pragmatic rationality, we only need to make good use of the knowledge that we have in our hands,
which, in my understanding, like the way that Sherlock Holmes solving a case. When applying
pragmatic rationality in planning, it comes to a set of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This, to a certain extent, guarantee that the comprehensive plan is about what the citizens really
needs. However, as a matter of fact, we all know that the perfect, pure rationality only exist in the
classic economic theory. In other words, the public is, by no means, being rational in deciding the
goals and visions, and all the following steps such as alternatives that generated by 'rational'
thinking, are based on the irrational goals and visions. Hence, to what extent that the plan is
rational? As one of the most popular types of plans, strategic plan, as its name implies, might be the
best representative for rational planning. It shares similar process with the rational plan process, it
includes a SWOT analysis part that add more sense of rationality to itself. However, as mentioned
by Brooks, strategic plans still need a planner or a planning agency to make the assumptions, which,
in the end, lead to the same problems that the other planning have, that is, using rational means to
chase irrational goals and objectives. In response to such unreliability of rationality, planning
theorists have taken various methods to face it. Some continued to use rationality and some
completely abandoned it and went out to find new solutions. Others proposed multiple means that,
in their own minds, solve the unreliability of rational planning. Different from the theorists,
planning practitioners use rationality more as a mean to evade from politics, in other words, as an

Skepticism and the Philosophy of Language in Early Modern...
Skepticism and the Philosophy of Language in Early Modern Thought
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the importance of skeptical arguments for the philosophy of
language in early modern thought. It contrasts the rationalist conception of language and knowledge
with that of philosophers who adopt some sort of skeptical position, maintaining that these
philosophers end up by giving language a greater importance than rationalists. The criticism of the
rationalists' appeal to natural light is examined, as well as skeptical arguments limiting knowledge
such as the so–called 'maker's knowledge' argument. This argument is then seen as capital for
favoring a positive interpretation of the importance of language for knowledge. The revival of ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to this view it is this kind of intuitive knowledge that grounds the possibility of certain
knowledge. Skeptics, on the other hand, attacked the very notion of intuitive knowledge, either
rejecting it, or, such as the more moderate ones, restricting its application to specific domains, e.g.,
mathematics.
My main contention is that skeptical arguments, which were mainly arguments purporting to
establish limits to knowledge, opened the way to the consideration of language as an alternative to
mind's intuitive powers in man's access to reality. Linguistic representation became important as a
way of avoiding some of the main problems affecting mental representation. I intend to concentrate
here on one specific septic argument known as "the maker's knowledge argument," stating that we
can only know what we create. My hypothesis is that the philosophical interest in language can be
understood in many cases as a result of an interpretation of language as man's creation and therefore
as part of the "maker's knowledge tradition."
Two related questions are central to this analysis: (1) How Descartes and the Cartesians (such as the
authors of the Port Royal Logic) considered language and its role in the philosophical

Rene Descartes and John Locke
Rene Descartes was a highly influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist and writer.
Many elements of his philosophy have precedent in late Aristolelianism and earlier philosophers like
St. Augustine. Descartes was a major figure in 17th century continental rationalism, later advocated
by Baruch Spinoza and opposed by the empiricist school of thought consisting of Locke, Berkeley,
and Hume. His most famous statement is: Cogito ergo sum, translation in English I think therefore I
am.
Descartes employs a method called metaphysical doubt, sometimes also referred to as
methodological skepticism: he rejects any ideas that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in
order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Locke said at birth, the human mind is a sort of blank slate on which experience writes. Locke
claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience. The term idea
stands for whatsoever is the object of the understanding, when a man thinks. Locke thinks we are
born with a bunch of faculties to receive abilities and to process the content once we gain it. For
example, the mind can engage in three different types of action in putting simple ideas together. The
first of these kinds of action is to combine them into complex ideas. Complex ideas are of two kinds,
ideas of substances and ideas of modes. Substances are independent existences. Beings that count as
substances include God, angels, humans, animals, plants and a variety of constructed things. Modes
are dependent existences. These include mathematical and moral ideas, and all the conventional
language of religion, politics and culture. The second action which the mind performs is the bringing
of two ideas, whether simple or complex, by one another so as to take a view of them at once,
without uniting them. This gives us our ideas of relations. The third act of the mind is the production
of our general ideas by abstraction from particulars, leaving out the particular circumstances of time
and place, which would limit the application of an idea to a particular individual. In addition to these
abilities, there are such faculties as memory which allow for the storing of

Rationalism And Empiricism
Empiricism is based from sensory experience and observed facts. This view emphasizes that
"scientific knowledge can be derived only from sensory experience" (Alligood, 2014, p. 15).
Examples of sensory experience are seeing, feeling and hearing facts. This approach is labeled the
research–then–theory strategy. An example that Alligood provides is that "formulating a differential
diagnosis requires collecting the facts and then devising a list of possible theories to explain the
facts" (2014, p. 16). Empiricists believe that reason alone does not give knowledge (Markie, 2017).
Rationalism and empiricism can be related. The two methods only conflict when covering the same
subject. Philosophers can be either a rationalist or empiricist but ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
16), or in this case an idea of the patient's diagnosis.
Philosophy and its' impact on nursing practice
A philosophy is created to find truth and meaning. It requires evaluation and use of critical thinking
as to why one's nursing practice matters. The history of philosophy and theories allows me to
evaluate my personal nursing philosophy. I believe that each person is their own individual. My way
of practicing nursing is by using compassion, listening to my patients and trying to understand them.
It is not just the body or the disease but rather the holistic nature of the patient. I believe that nursing
deals with promotion of health and prevention of disease. Lifelong education, research and evidence
based practice are all utilized in my profession of nursing and are all concepts important to my
nursing care.
The discipline of nursing is characterized into four metaparadigm concepts. The first concept is
person. I believe that nursing requires me to think of each person as an individual and take time to
be with that person using human–to–human interaction. Working in the emergency room I try my
best to listen to each patient with proper eye contact to provide the visual cues of compassion. The
second is environment. My nursing philosophy also incorporates all of the patient's surroundings
and their situation that may be causing an illness or a nursing need. It could be the people

Kant Rationalism
Philosophy can be defined as the process of thought in the essence of life, which contributes to the
properties, and the cause and effect of its natural cycle that includes humans and the universe.
Ancient philosophers discussed their justification of the knowledge claims, all of them in a different
perspective. Throughout the time new theories and philosopher express their thoughts, arguing to
questions and methods used to achieve the answers and the certainty of their knowledge acquisition.
In this case, Immanuel Kant known as German idealist talks about the used rationalism or
empiricism as the justification of knowledge, it contemplates the phenomenal and noumenal world
and exemplifies his theory using the categories of understanding. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Ancient philosopher started to create their own theories to answer questions, such as the meaning of
life. In order to answer them, they first had to study the acquisition of the knowledge itself known as
epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and is divided into two believes rationalism
and empiricism. Rationalism consists of innate ideas and is learn by reason, also known as the priori
knowledge. Philosophers like Plato and Descartes used this belief as their justification of their
knowledge. Plato by stating that the innate ideas are forms; "Perfect, unchanging, ideal forms lend
order and understanding to physical reality" (Stevenson 15). And Descartes believing that the innate
ideas are based perfection "spiritual reality, including God and the mind"(Stevenson 15). On the
other hand, Empiricism is created by experiences and sense, best known as posterior knowledge.
Some philosophers that stand by this believe where Hume and Locke. Hume's theory was a focus on
human nature and analyzing the scientific reasoning and its limitations. As for Locke, he argued the
innate ideas and included a political perspective on natural

Rationalism
Rationalism In Plato's Meno it begins with a debate between a fictional Socrates and Meno about
whether virtue can be taught or if it is acquired in another way. Socrates begins to prove his point
when he asks the slaves about the geometry question. When the slave answers the question, Socrates
suggests to Meno that they inquire this together. Meno argues with his "Meno's Paradox" that, "one
logically cannot inquire productivity into what one does not already know" (Meno 58). Then
Socrates continues to make Meno question his own beliefs when the slave recognizes the answer to
geometrical problem. Socrates proceeds to confirm with the concept that the sole is immortal and
the slave was "recollecting" knowledge that the soul already had. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes goes through valid and well thought–out arguments to come to find realizations. He
concentrates on knowledge rather than action. In the Third Meditation, Descartes continues to
introduce the idea that God is innate. Descartes introduces the role of God in the Third Meditation.
He suggests that you can use your intuition, but you can't use time or senses. Descartes uses the
teleological argument to show innate things. It consists of teleological intuition which has two
caused principles. One is that everything has a cause with at least as much reality as it has itself. The
other principle is that everything with objective reality has a cause with formal reality. Objective
realities are things like images and ideas, and formal reality is the kind of reality it has by virtue.
There are infinite and finite substances which are both types of formal reality. Finite substances
cause properties, but the properties depend on the finite substances for their existence, but infinite
substances don't depend on anything at all. There are certain standards the infinite and finite
substances must have to have an idea of an idea mind such as, God. Through this argument,
Descartes is trying to introduce the idea that God is innate. Descartes and Plato's arguments all did
come to the conclusion that knowledge was an innate. Both philosophers believe that you can come
to realizations of the truth. Plato believes that you have the concept to begin with

The Current Challenges With Curriculum Of South Africa
Introduction
In this essay I will state the current challenges with curriculum of South Africa, and what impact it
has on me as a student–teacher and my future as a teacher of South Africa. I will state implications
of integrating the curriculum in the class and what it means to "transfer" the curriculum to the
learners in my class.
My essay will be based upon a critical rationalism philosophical perspective. And based upon my
own world view.
According to (Smith, 2015) critical rationalism also known as scientific rationalism is being referred
to as a philosophy that encourages open mindedness, which means that critical rationalism is anti–
dogmatic and anti–authoritarian. Its states according to (Smith, 2015) that critical rationalism is
completely against societies where people cannot speak their minds freely and discuss things openly.
I will also discuss my own opinion on critical rationalism and what it means to me.
Content
According to (Anon., 2009) South Africa has a high–cost, low–performance education system that
does not compare favorably with education systems in other African countries, or in similar
developing economies. There are multiple challenges facing the South African education system,
challenges such as a shortage of teachers, under qualified teachers and a poor teacher performance.
When introducing the curriculum to the learners these challenges cause a lot of implications such as
poor learner standards and results. These challenges are usually

A Summary Of Descartes's Meditations
There are many lessons to be learned from Descartes's Meditations. Some argue that the major
lesson is to doubt authority and think for oneself, while others argue that Descartes's cogito is most
important. This cogito, "I think therefore I am," is a popular misquote of Descartes's Meditations on
First Philosophy. The line never appears in his Meditations, and yet people claim that this is the
most important thing to lean from the Meditations. However, this is not the case. The critical
philosophical lesson that comes from Descartes's skeptical exercise in the first two of his
Meditations is that rationalism is a sounder philosophical stance than empiricism.
Empiricism is a theory regarding the nature of knowledge. The empiricist believes that all
significant knowledge comes from experience. Additionally, the empiricist claims that any
knowledge that could be obtained by analytic reasoning is trivial knowledge that you already knew.
Rationalism, on the other hand, is the belief that some forms of meaningful knowledge can come
from reasoning through things. Rationalists argue that it requires reason to make sense of your
experiences; otherwise, there would be just an experience and no knowledge gained from it. Both
rationalists and empiricists have to deal with the problem of perception.
The problem of perception lies in that much of our knowledge starts off as sensory information. The
problem then deals with how we can trust our senses. Pritchard explains it well when he says, "Part
of the problem is that the way things look isn't always the way things are..." (ALPHA). For this
reason, the viewpoint that our senses directly convey the external world is called naïve realism. A
viewpoint was raised to deal with this issue, indirect realism. Pritchard explains this as our senses
give us an impression of the world and we obtain knowledge from that impression (ALPHA). This
has problems, because we cannot trust that the impression we get is an accurate view of the external
world. Descartes, in his Meditations, comes up with a workable solution for this problem.
Descartes's solution comes directly from his revelations in his first two Meditations. In these
meditations he used methodical skepticism to systematically

The Knowledge of Human Existence: Perception, Empiricism,...
March 11, 2012
The Knowledge of Human Existence: Perception, Empiricism, and Reality An Analysis Contrived
Through The Matrix and The Prestige
Movies provide the audience with a unique experience. Not only do they entertain, they allow the
audience to explore their own preconceptions. The most vital preconception that movies allow the
viewer to explore and interact with is the definition and formation of knowledge. For centuries man
has grasped for the true definition of knowledge. In this struggle many have fought for a unifying
definition, this great conflagration of discourse and study did not lead to a unified definition of
knowledge. Moreover, it leads to the question that still beats in the hearts of the philosopher and the
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In his dying moments Angiers defines his own understanding of his purpose, while the film–maker
paints it in a romantic sense, it provides the viewer with the true understanding of individual
existence. It is just that. Individual. While shaped by the collective experience, the only thing a
human being can say for certain is that their existence is their own, folding too completely into an
empirical collective experience is as unfulfilling as life without death. Hence, Angier must die by
the end of the film. (Nolan, 2006).
Knowledge cannot be limited solely to a scientific explanation of why things are and why things
aren't. John Cottingham's piece, "The Question," from The Meaning of Life provides the seeker of
knowledge with an explanation for the limitedness of scientific inquiry. In the piece Cottingham
highlights "religious discourse" throughout time as necessary force for further investigation into the
why that creates the human need for knowledge of existence. While "religious discourse" may not
provide an exact answer to what existence is, this is inconsequential as according to Cottingham,
"But its advocates would urge that it none the less assuages the nausea, the 'nausea' as Jean–Paul
Sartre called it, that we feel in confronting the blank mystery of existence," (Cottingham, 2003, p.9).
Here Cottingham's inclusion of "religious discourse" as essential in understanding the "blank

The Influence of Rationalism on the French Revolution
Ben Jorgensen
Professor Wakefield
English 5
3 April 2013
The Influence of Rationalism on the French Revolution What was the driving force behind the
French Revolution? Many people may say it was financial, or political, and while I would agree that
these things were part of the force that propelled the French Revolution, I would assert that the
philosophies of the Enlightenment were the dominant force that blasted late eighteenth century
France into revolution . In his article, "The French Revolution: Ideas and Ideologies "Maurice
Cranston of History Today articulates that the Enlightenment philosophies were pivotal in the
revolutions inception. He writes that:
"The philosophes undoubtedly provided the ideas."
Cranston goes on to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The King shared his powers with nobody, and was answerable for its exercise to nobody but God."
(21)
The ancien regime government lacked reason, but was bursting with more than its fair share of
divine laws and rights that the "creator" had set in place in order to insure social stability. In fact, as
Doyle points out in his book, this concept that God had set forth a divine law to be followed was
directly stated in a document that parliament wrote:
"This social order is not only essential to the practice of every sound government: it has its origin in
divine law." (24)
The document goes on to say that:
"The infinite and immutable wisdom in the plan of the universe established an unequal distribution
of strength and character, necessarily resulting in inequality in the conditions of men within the civil
order..." (24)
This document summed up the ancien regimes ideology: God has placed the king the clergy, and
aristocracy above the common people and that is how it is, because that is how it has been. The
words irrational, divine, and superstitious come up many times when describing the ancien regimes
government and society; in fact, these things were actually integral to the maintenance of
government and society in France during the ancien regime. Indeed, you could not have this form of
government without divine law, irrational organization, and superstitious beliefs.

The Philosophical View Of Empiricism
Today in society, many people are free to follow which ever philosophical view that they feel is
right for them. Each philosophical view has a different set of beliefs, and many philosophers went
through great lengths to prove that the philosophical view of their choice was the best one. In this
paper I will be talking about two philosophical theories. The first one is called Empiricism, and it
was made famous by a philosopher named David Hume. Empiricism states that our knowledge
should come from sensory experience, impressions, and observation. The other philosophical view I
will be taking about is called Rationalism. Many people who don't agree with empiricism lean more
towards Rationalism. Rationalism was made famous by a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
With thoughts, your mind thinks about certain feelings, but you don't experience them first hand.
With impression, you experience things such as hearing, seeing, and feeling first hand, instead of
just thinking about them. For example, an impression can be used to describe a man who is "in fit of
anger" , and a man who is thinking about anger, but not actually in a "fit of anger" would be
considered to be a thought. A thought can also be considered as an idea. Hume describe ideas as
being "less vivacious than impressions". He feels that impressions are drawn from memory or
imagination, thus causing them to be less lively and vivid. Our mind consist of many complex ideas,
and according to Hume these ideas are the things that influence our imagination. He claims that
complex ideas are combined into one big idea, thus resulting to a single idea. For example, when we
think of a golden mountain, our mind use the memories we have of the color gold, and the memories
we have of a mountain, and combine the two into a single image of a golden mountain. Another
example is our idea of God. When we think of the supremely good and intelligent nature of God, we
are doing nothing more than, comparing his goodness to the goodness of a human beings. Hume
claims that we can only have knowledge of things that we have experienced before. Since a blind
man can't see, his knowledge of the colors will be very limited. The only way

Epistemology Knowledge Is Power
Epistemology "Knowledge is power". Since we were little, the importance of knowledge has been
engraved into our minds. We were taught that knowledge is one of the most important values in life
and that we must work hard in order to attain such extensive and thorough knowledge. Society has
taught us that knowledge is the key to success for it is the thing that advances us to a better life. But
have you ever think of knowledge beyond of what the authorities had presented us. "How does our
mind works?" "How do we acquire knowledge?" "Is there one way of developing knowledge or are
there many depending on the type of knowledge in question?" These are some of the questions that
are often asked in epistemology. Now, epistemology is a branch of philosophy ... Show more content
The founder and father of pragmatism is Charles Sanders Pierce. As defined by the encyclopedia of
philosophy, "pragmatism is a philosophical movement that says a proposition is true if it works
satisfactorily and that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of
accepting it." In simpler words, it is a more practical way of assessing an issue and rejects the
unpractical ideas. Though pragmatism is closely associated with empiricist attitude, it intends to be a
more radical and less obnoxious in form. It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against
dogma, artificiality, and the pretence of finality in truth. Pragmatism is focus on change and that we
should understand things in terms of changing processes. We are all aware of the gap between the
rationalists and empiricists. Both rejected the belief of one another and both oppose one another.
Hence, this is intended to mediate between the two traditions and combine to what is significant of
them. Like the empiricist the pragmatists thought that we have no conception of the whole of reality
and like the rationalist and idealist they saw morality, religion and human purpose as constituting a
significant aspect of our

Empiricism And Rationalism : Two Theoretical Approaches To...
Empiricism and Rationalism are two theoretical approaches to human knowledge. Discuss their
points of difference.
The Knowledge is an essential problem that has received a great attention from the philosophers
over time. There were many doctrines tried to understand the knowledge and how the human can
gain it, the most important doctrines that described the way to gain knowledge are Empiricism and
Rationalism.
Both doctrines interested to understand the nature of knowledge, the limit of our knowledge, and the
way to gain that knowledge, the contention between them was around the way we gained
knowledge.
Rationalism is an intellectual tendency that sees the reason as the primary source of knowledge, the
basic tool of manifestation, and the standard between good ideas and misconceptions. One of the
important pioneers of this doctrine was Rene Descartes.
The most important priorities for the Rationalism are:
– The mind has innate principles prior to each experience and it doesn't generate by the Senses. Such
as The principle of contradiction, which says that the two contradictions do not meet together, the
innate ideas of the existence of God, and the existence of the self, all these principles comes from
thinking.
Descartes believed that our knowledge of the reality of things does not depend on the Senses, but it
relies on the activity of the mind. Because of the senses do not achieve the abstract knowledge that
the thinking needed. Overall, the thinking is based on the

The Cartesian Rationalism Of Descartes
Cartesian Rationalism Descartes is considered to be the father of modern day Western Philosophy,
and was a mathematician who began to consider if what he knew was actually true. Born into
medieval times where the global knowledge was coming unwound, everything that had been
considered common knowledge was coming into question. He concluded that nothing was true,
unless you could sway any argument against it. This method of system doubt would leave him with
a core bit of knowledge to build upon, but it wasn't without skepticism. The knowledge, and the way
that we acquire it is known as epistemology, and unless we can all agree on how we know what is
real, there will not be an agreement upon what we know. To say something is certain because we
perceive it that way creates a gap between the way different people can view the same thing, but
neither are inherently wrong based on their senses. We must have different ways of describing the
same substances, due to how they can change and go through a metamorphosis, but in the end, they
are the same substance. This brings up the question on whether or not our senses are reliable enough
to come to a real understanding, and the example used of wax melting shows that his understanding
gave him the real answer, while his senses would have deceived him. The systemic doubt provides a
blanket, to ensure that the root cause of something is understood, much like the 5 why system that
technicians use today. Understanding when and where to

Philosophy: Do We Have Innate Ideas? Essay
Do we have innate ideas? Offer your view with reference to the work of Descartes and Locke
I understand the concept of innate ideas alone means ideas that presents our mind at birth. Descartes
and Locke both have their own views about innate ideas and their arguments are completely
different to each other and the question remain to the human knowledge. Do innate ideas really
exist?
Descartes does not put experiences to his philosophy like the other philosophers, Bacon and Hobbes.
He believes that we have some innate ideas that self, identity, substance and God are in us as we are
born "most part on the truths contained in the mind". He proposed an observations from the wax.
Whatever he heats or cools the wax, it would still remain the same ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Reflection is telling us the operation of mind such as includes perception, thinking, doubting,
believing, reasoning, knowing, willing.
After reading the analysis of innate ideas of the two philosophers. I tend to agree with Locke's
argument that there is no such innate ideas. First, Descartes does not proving enough about how can
we born with innate ideas? This major flaw eventually get to Locke's tension and give us a strong
evident of the young children should aware of truth if they have innate ideas in them. Second, I
believe in Locke's criticism about ideas only gain through our experiences and situations. Thus the
more experience we have, the vivid picture about our external world we can perceived.
It is sometimes said that Kant's philosophy represents a sort of synthesis or reconciliation of
"empiricism" and "rationalism." How accurate do you think this way of characterizing Kant is? Be
sure to display your knowledge of Kant's philosophy.
Kant credited both empiricism and rationalism movements. He believes that they both contributed to
human's knowledge and should not reject neither one of them. So, he keeps some parts of those
principles and defines empiricism a posteriori knowledge and rationalism as a priori knowledge. His
goal is to explain and then justify the possibility of scientific knowledge.
Empiricism is a belief that humans being come to the

Leibniz Rationalism
Rationalism is the principle that maintains that through reason alone we can gain at least some
positive knowledge of the world. The three major rationalists, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and
Gottfried Welhelm Leibniz, used this idea in order to defy skepticism and expose the true nature of
reality. However, each philosopher is frequently in disagreement. The idea for 'God', and what
constitutes substance, matter and reality are the four key structural beliefs that aid each rationalist in
the forming of their arguments. Yet, it is these four concepts and the arguments behind them that
cause the inconsistency found in rationalism. The idea that reason can provide positive solutions to
the various questions put forth is made doubtful ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
So, relatedly, the monad must not only exhibit properties, but contain within itself 'virtually' or
'potentially' all the properties it will exhibit in the future, and also contain the 'trace' of all the
properties it did exhibit in the past. In Leibniz's extraordinary phrase, found frequently in his later
work, the monad is 'pregnant' with the future and 'laden' with the past (Monadology, p22). All these
properties are 'folded' up within the monad, and they unfold when and as they have sufficient reason
to do so. (Monadology p61) The network of explanation is indivisible – to divide it would either
leave some predicates without a sufficient reason, or merely separate two substances that never
belonged together in the first place. Correspondingly, the monad is one, 'simple' and indivisible.
Everything we perceive around us, which is a unified being, must be a single monad. Everything
else is a composite of many monads. My coffee cup, for example, is made of many monads (an
infinite number, actually). In everyday life, we tend to call it a single thing only because the monads
all act together. My soul, however, and the soul of every other living thing, is a single monad which
'controls' a composite body. Leibniz thus says that at least for living things we must posit substantial
forms, as the principle of the unity of certain living composites. My

Examples Of Rationalism In Pride And Prejudice
Jane Austen's novels have always been viewed as novels that portray the social and historical
aspects of the 19th century, rather than the philosophical issues also present during the time.
Through further analysis, Pride and Prejudice, a novel by Jane Austen, not only displays the social
and historical aspects, but also has a significant presence of philosophical issues. This is shown
through the vocabulary choices throughout the novel, and phrases that also question of values such
as truth. The novel has been seen by many analysists as an example of rationalism, due to her
characters and the actions that they take. In her critique, "Conjecturing possibilities: Reading and
misreading texts in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice", Felicia Bonaparte ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
An example of this would be when Elizabeth and her sister Jane come to the reasoning about why
Mr. Bingley had left without following up with Jane. They both come to the conclusion that Mr.
Bingley's sisters had persuaded him to stop wooing Jane when that in fact is untrue. Elizabeth later
finds out that in was in fact Darcy, who was behind her sister's heartbreak. In his letter to her, he
writes "I had detached Mr. Bingley from your sister...if I have wounded your sister's feelings, it was
unknowingly done" (Austen 136–138). Elizabeth and Jane reflect the ideas of empiricism by
learning the truth through further knowledge, rather than reasoning. This realization allows us to
further analyze and interpret the novel and realize how through gaining more knowledge, the
characters develop very much throughout the

Rationalism And Rationalism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Carolina Lewis

More from Carolina Lewis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rationalism And Rationalism