Empiricism vs Rationalism

498 Words2 Pages
Empiricism vs Rationalism The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw complicated debate between empiricists and rationalists, in which physics, mathematics, theology and logic were called into discussion. The sources of out knowledge can be divided into two different sources, what enter our mind through the use of senses, and what enters our mind through the use of reasoning. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge comes from the sense, while rationalism is the notion that knowledge is discovered by the reason. In order to gain knowledge, use of sense and reason must coexist together. In my opinion, one cannot gain any knowledge without sense and reasoning. In every situation, there is demonstration of knowledge. In terms of logic, believing what you see and the idea of empiricism makes sense. To gain knowledge in a given situation, we often experience it first time. At the same time, however, our personal set of opinions control how we see things around us. We are the ones that are given the choice of what is being seen and what is believed. Empiricism began with John Locke who attacked Cartesian idea that reason alone could provide us with knowledge. Locke came out with the term of “Tabula Rasa.” It means that the mind comes into life blank, or empty and is written on by experience. Later, Philosopher Hume came out with his version of the “tabula rasa” principle, the copy theory of ideas. The theory that suggests all of our ideas are either copies of sense impressions and rearrangements of copies of sense impressions. The idea of empiricism, we cannot have reason prior to having experience. Some people often choose to believe in what we cannot see, for example, love cannot be seen directly, we are only able to see the feelings and actions that demonstrate love. In the religious domain, it’s the same scenario the people believe in what they cannot see, yet
Open Document