What are the limitations of rationalism? of empiricism? Solution The term ‘rationalist’ originates from the Latinratio; meaning reason. Rationalists believe that thenature of human knowledge is logic. The main argument forrationalism is based on the assumption that knowledge requirescertainty. Therefore, one can only claim to possess knowledge if itis logically impossible to prove that they are wrong. Rationalstatements are known a priori, or independent of experience. Itstruth or falsity can be proven by reasoning alone. The claim‘two add three equals five’ is rational. From ourknowledge of the concept, it cannot be otherwise. Therefore we saythat a priori truths are necessarily true. Likewise, ‘asquare has four sides’ is also known a priori and isnecessarily true, for a square has four sides by definition. We canwork it out by logic alone. A priori truths tend to be associatedwith maths and geometry. The term ‘empirical’ comes from the Greekemperia, meaning experience. An empirical statement is onewhose truth or falsity can be known by experience alone. The term‘experience’ refers to the senses of sight, sound,touch, taste, and smell. Unlike rationalism, empiricism claims thatprior to experience, the mind is like a ‘blank slate’and we have no innate a priori knowledge. Empirical claims areknown a posteiori, or through experience. For example, the claim‘There are three people in the room’ would be known aposteriori. It would be impossible to work out by reason. It canonly be known through experience. However, it could have beenotherwise; there could only have been two people in the room.Therefore, we say that empirical claims are contingently true.Empirical truths are associated with scientific research and theway the world works. Everything we know about the world is known aposteriori. Plato, René Descartes and Goltfreid Wilhelm Von Leibnizwere all rationalist philosophers. Plato argued that themathematical concepts of a triangle, the fact that all three anglesadd up to 180, for example, were indubitable and eternal. However,any triangle which we may see in the experiential world will neverbe quite perfect. Perhaps it would be slightly crooked. It willonly be an approximate of the ideal triangle. Therefore Platoconcluded that logic is a vastly superior means to obtain knowledgethan through the senses. Being a mathematician, Descartes was drawn to the rationalapproach. In his first meditation, ‘of things which we maydoubt’, he firmly rejects the senses as unreliable, for hehas often found himself deceived by them before. Descartesconsidered arithmetic and geometry, which ‘regard merely thesimplest and most general of objects’ to be more reliablethan physics and medicine, For physics and medicine rely uponexperience whereas geometry relies purely on logic. Descartesfamously claimed to gain knowledge of his own existence from thefact that he was thinking. Hume, Berkeley, and Lock were all empiricists. Lock stronglydisagreed with Descartes that.

1. What are the limitations of rationalism? of empiricism?
Solution
The term ‘rationalist’ originates from the Latinratio; meaning reason. Rationalists believe that
thenature of human knowledge is logic. The main argument forrationalism is based on the
assumption that knowledge requirescertainty. Therefore, one can only claim to possess
knowledge if itis logically impossible to prove that they are wrong. Rationalstatements are
known a priori, or independent of experience. Itstruth or falsity can be proven by reasoning
alone. The claim‘two add three equals five’ is rational. From ourknowledge of the concept, it
cannot be otherwise. Therefore we saythat a priori truths are necessarily true. Likewise, ‘asquare
has four sides’ is also known a priori and isnecessarily true, for a square has four sides by
definition. We canwork it out by logic alone. A priori truths tend to be associatedwith maths and
geometry.
The term ‘empirical’ comes from the Greekemperia, meaning experience. An empirical
statement is onewhose truth or falsity can be known by experience alone. The term‘experience’
refers to the senses of sight, sound,touch, taste, and smell. Unlike rationalism, empiricism claims
thatprior to experience, the mind is like a ‘blank slate’and we have no innate a priori knowledge.
Empirical claims areknown a posteiori, or through experience. For example, the claim‘There are
three people in the room’ would be known aposteriori. It would be impossible to work out by
reason. It canonly be known through experience. However, it could have beenotherwise; there
could only have been two people in the room.Therefore, we say that empirical claims are
contingently true.Empirical truths are associated with scientific research and theway the world
works. Everything we know about the world is known aposteriori.
Plato, René Descartes and Goltfreid Wilhelm Von Leibnizwere all rationalist philosophers. Plato
argued that themathematical concepts of a triangle, the fact that all three anglesadd up to 180, for
example, were indubitable and eternal. However,any triangle which we may see in the
experiential world will neverbe quite perfect. Perhaps it would be slightly crooked. It willonly be
an approximate of the ideal triangle. Therefore Platoconcluded that logic is a vastly superior
means to obtain knowledgethan through the senses.
Being a mathematician, Descartes was drawn to the rationalapproach. In his first meditation, ‘of
things which we maydoubt’, he firmly rejects the senses as unreliable, for hehas often found
himself deceived by them before. Descartesconsidered arithmetic and geometry, which ‘regard
merely thesimplest and most general of objects’ to be more reliablethan physics and medicine,

2. For physics and medicine rely uponexperience whereas geometry relies purely on logic.
Descartesfamously claimed to gain knowledge of his own existence from thefact that he was
thinking.
Hume, Berkeley, and Lock were all empiricists. Lock stronglydisagreed with Descartes that
some knowledge was innate. Hebelieved that all knowledge derived from sensation, either
directlyor as a reflection. The ideas drawn from experience can then bebuilt up into knowledge.
Unlike the rationalist approach whichstates that mathematics is purely logical, Lock argued that
evenmathematical knowledge came from the senses. For a child has togain experience in
counting numbers before they can carry out eventhe simplest of addition.
Rational truths are extremely useful in so far as we generallyaccept them as indubitable. For
example, it is beyond doubt that Iam my mother’s child because, by definition, a child musthave
originated from its mother. This is because rational truths‘must be, or be deductible from,
universal truths which couldnot possibly be false’. Yet due to Descartes’ evildemon hypothesis,
apart from the fact that we are thinking, it ispossible that we could be being deceived about even
the universaltruths we take for certain, such as the maths and the laws ofnature. The result of this
is that everything isdubitable. The biggest limitation of rationalism, therefore,is the failure to find
absolute certainty in anything. Empiricistswould also argue as to how relevant rational truths are,
for theytell us nothing about the way the world works. Sometimes, while thelogic may be sound,
experiences prove it wrong. One of Zeno’sparadoxes shows another weakness of logic. It implies
that itimpossible to get from point A to point B. He noted that in orderto get from A to B, you
would first have to travel half way, thenhalf of the remainder. This could be done a infinite
amount oftimes, meaning that we would never arrive at B. While logic tellsus getting from A to
B is impossible, experience tells us that wedo reach our destinations.
Our sense experiences tell us all we know about the world.Unlike rationalist claims, empirical
claims are relevant in ourlives. If not for experience, one would not know that putting yourhand
in fire induces pain. If one was to totally mistrust thesenses they would not be able to live a
‘normal’ life.However, empiricism also has its shortcomings. If we come down witha cold, we
may lose out sense of taste and smell. We cannot,therefore, be sure that there are not other senses
that wedon’t know of. Also, it is clear that our senses are inferiorto those of certain animals. How
then can we be sure that certaintruths would not suddenly be ‘revealed’ if we were ableto see
infra red and ultra violet light, for example. In addition,empiricism relies upon perception. This
can easily be distorted byextraneous factors. Initial perceptions are often incorrect. Forexample,
the sun may appear to revolve around the world, but we nowknow that it does not. However, this
is in fact one of empiricismsgreatest strengths. It is possible to reassess and revaluate
theinformation to draw up more reliable conclusions. Empiricism isalso inductive. If I were to
claim that ‘all examined swanshave been white’ it would be reasonable to conclude that thenext

3. swan would be white too, for in our experience, they alwayshave been. We infer that they always
will be. Empiricismrelies upon the claim that ‘the laws of nature have alwaysbeen uniform and
always will be’. But we do not know this.Therefore we can make no certain claims about the
future. Descartesshows that our senses can be unreliable, for we can be deceived bythem, for
example, in our sleep. It is usually impossible todistinguish dreams from waking hours.
Therefore it is possible thatwe are being deceived now. Again, the hypothesis of the evildeceiver
shows that all our sense experiences are dubitable. Aswith rationalism, the biggest limitation of
empiricism is thefailure to provide us with anything certain, only likelyprobabilities.