Rationalism holds that reason alone provides the foundation of knowledge. According to rationalism, the mind is wired with certain innate capacities and ideas that allow it to gain knowledge. Empiricism, on the other hand, claims that knowledge can only come from experiences, not from reason alone. Constructivism is a hybrid view that knowledge requires both innate capacities of the mind as well as experiences. The essay question asks the reader to choose one of these three theories of knowledge - empiricism, rationalism, or constructivism - and explain why a particular philosopher's account of that theory is the strongest and most plausible. The reader must also explain why their chosen theory is more plausible than what they consider the second best alternative theory.

1. Rationalism – Premium Paper Help
InstructionsOverviewRationalism is the view that reason itself provides the foundation of
knowledge. In other words, according to the rationalist, the mind is wired or implanted with
certain a priori capacities/ideas, and it is in virtue of these a priori capacities/ideas that we
can explain the source and foundation of knowledge. As to which ideas/capacities are the
important ones when it comes to giving a robust account of knowledge, this is a matter of
considerable dispute. However, regardless of any potential lack of historical convergence on
which aspects of our thinking are innate, it is important to note that the rationalistic
tradition has a long, resilient history that extends to the modern day. Indeed contemporary
studies on childhood development are often cited in support of rationalism. While opposite
in its conclusion to rationalism, empiricism has a likewise long and storied history with
deep anchor points in the history of Western thought and contemporary intellectual life. It
also has its fair share of passionate adherents and critics. According to empiricism, the
foundations of knowledge can only be captured through an appeal to particular experiences
over reason itself.Thus, whereas the metaphor of a mind that is wired or implanted with
certain capacities/ideas was used to illustrate rationalism, empiricism is perhaps best
thought of in terms of a blank slate or an empty vessel. In this way, empiricism denies that
there are innate or a priori ideas, and is therefore in direct opposition to rationalism. A third
main theory of knowledge, and what is often considered a hybrid of rationalism and
empiricism, is constructivism. According to it, knowledge must be explained by both an
appeal to reason itself (a priori) and by reference to experience (a posteriori). In this way,
the constructivist holds that knowledge requires a fusion between the innate capacities of
the mind and our experiences. A metaphor that is sometimes used to express the complex
and deep union between reason and experience is that of a cookie cutter and dough. Under
this characterization, the innate aspects of mind (e.g., space and time) can be equated with
the cookie cutter, the dough represents sense-data, and the cookie signifies our ideas and
ultimately our knowledge. In terms of deciding which theory of knowledge is the stronger
one, this is no small challenge. Each view has distinct advantages and
disadvantages.However, it is worth noting that while there might be a strong initial
temptation to go with the constructivist’s compromise between empiricism and rationalism,
sometimes the best solutions to our problems do not involve a compromise. Rather,
sometimes the best solutions are the simpler ones. So the challenge here is to decide
whether or not a hybrid theory of knowledge really is more plausible than its more simple
counterparts.Essay Question: Choose ONE of the above three theories of knowledge covered

2. in this module (i.e., empiricism, rationalism, constructivism) and ONE particular
philosopher’s account of this same theory (e.g., Descartes’ rationalism, Locke’s empiricism
or Kant’s constructivism) and explain why it is the strongest, most plausible theory of
knowledge. Also, as a part of your essay, explain why the theory that you are defending is
more plausible than what you regard as the second best alternative. For example, if you
believe that constructivism is the most plausible theory of knowledge and that empiricism
is a close second, carefully explain why.