Rationalism holds, in contrast to empiricism, that it is reason, not experience, that is
most important for our acquisition of knowledge. There are three distinct types
of knowledge that the rationalist might put forward as supporting his view and
undermining that of the empiricist.
First, the rationalist might argue that we
possess at least some innate knowledge. We are not born, as the empiricist John
Locke thought, with minds like blanks slates onto which experience writes items
of knowledge. Rather, even before we experience the world there are some things
that we know. We at least possess some basic instincts; arguably, we also
possess some innate concepts, such as a faculty for language.
Second, the rationalist might argue that
there are some truths that, though not known innately, can be worked out
independent of experience of the world. These might be truths of logic or
mathematics, or ethical truths. We can know the law of the excluded middle,
answers to sums, and the difference between right and wrong, without having to
base that knowledge in experience.
Third, the rationalist might argue that
there are some truths that, though grounded in part in experience, cannot be
derived from experience alone. Aesthetic truths, and truths about causation,
for instance, seem to many to be of this kind. Two people may observe the same
object, yet reach contradictory views as to its beauty or ugliness. This shows
that aesthetic qualities are not presented to us by our senses, but rather are
overlaid onto experience by reason. Similarly, we do not observe causation, we
merely see one event followed by another; it is the mind, not the world, that
provides us with the idea that the former event causes the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment