Rationalism and Empiricism

RATIONALISM AND
EMPIRICISM
EPISTEMOLOGY
• how to define knowledge, where does knowledge come from, is knowledge possible, how
can we know and how does knowledge relate to truth,
• How is a source credited as being genuine after all?
• As per my opinion absolute truth, in itself, is non-existent
• Modern epistemology is a conjunction of two fundamental theories - empiricism and
rationalism,
SOME DEFINITIONS
• Analytic / Synthetic Truths

• A priori / A Posteriori
• Intuition / Deduction
ANALYTIC TRUTH - SYNTHETIC TRUTH
• Analytic –meaning of words-possibility of logical contradiction

• Bachelor- Unmarried man/Triangle- 3 sides
• Synthetic Truth-how world is – no logical contradiction
• Grass – green/Water –boils @100 c
A PRIORI - A POSTERIORI
Knowledge that can be Knowledge that can only be

acquired without experience of acquired from experience of
the external world, through the external world
thought alone
E.g. working out what 100 E.g. doing an experiment to
divided by 7 is discover the temperature at
which water boils
INTUITION - DEDUCTION
Intuition and deduction

are a priori methods for
gaining knowledge:
(Rational) intuition:The
ability to know something is • E.g. Descartes’ Cogito Argument
true just by thinking about
it
Deduction:A method of • E.g. You can use deduction to deduce statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 below:
deriving true propositions • If A is true then B is true
from other true • A is true
• Therefore, B is true
propositions (using reason)
Empiricism says all a priori knowledge is of
analytic truths (i.e. there is no synthetic a
RATIONALISM - priori knowledge)
EMPIRICISM
Rationalism says not all a priori knowledge
is of analytic truths (i.e. there is at least one
synthetic truth that can be known a
priori using intuition and deduction)
• Most of the time, empiricism holds true. If you take any synthetic truth, such as “water
boils at 100°c”, it seems impossible that we could learn it without some a
posteriori experience of the world (e.g. an experiment).
• So, most synthetic truths are known a posteriori. But the question is whether this
relationship holds true all the time or just some of the time. Rationalism says valid only
some of the time: There is at least one synthetic truth that can be known a
priori through intuition and deduction.
DESCARTES
• Descartes says there are 3 synthetic truths that can be known a priori using intuition and
deduction
• I exist
• God Exists
• External world exists
• If Descartes’ arguments for these claims work and are purely a priori, then they support
the rationalist claim that some synthetic truths can be known a priori.
DESCARTES METHOD
• Anything can be doubted

Three waves of doubt
• Illusion
• Dreaming
• Deception
COGITO ERGO SUM
• dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

• This translates as:
• I doubt
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am
EXISTENCE OF GOD – TRADEMARK ARGUMENT
• “Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much reality in the
efficient and total cause as in its effect… And hence it follows… that the more perfect… cannot
be a consequence and dependence of the less perfect… By the name of God I understand an
infinite substance… And consequently I must necessarily conclude… that God exists; for,
although the idea of substance is in me… I would not, nevertheless, have the idea of an infinite
substance… since I am a finite being, unless the idea had been put into me by some substance
which was truly infinite.”
• – Descartes, Meditation 3
I have the concept of God
My concept of God is the concept of something infinite and perfect
But I am a finite and imperfect being (finite reality)
The cause of an effect must have at least as much reality as the effect
So, the cause of my concept of God must have as much reality as what the concept is about
So, the cause of my idea of God must have as much reality as an infinite and perfect being
(i.e. must have infinite reality)
So, God exists
EXISTENCE OF EXTERNAL WORLD
• “there is in me a certain passive faculty of perception, that is to say of receiving and

knowing the ideas of physical objects these ideas are often presented to my mind
without my contributing to it in any way, and indeed frequently against my will. This
faculty must therefore necessarily be in some substance different from me… and this
substance is either [physical objects]… or else it is God himself, or some other creature
more noble than [physical objects]… But, God being no deceiver, it is manifest that he
does not of himself send me these ideas directly, or by the agency of any creature… And
accordingly one must confess that [physical objects] exist.”
Descartes, Meditation 6
• I have perceptions of an external world with physical objects
• My perceptions cannot be caused by my own mind because they are involuntary
• So, the cause of my perceptions must be something external to my mind
• God exists (If the cause of my perceptions is God and not the physical objects themselves, then God has
created me with a tendency to form false beliefs from my perception (because premise 1)
• But God is a perfect being by definition and so would not create me with a tendency to form false beliefs
from my perceptions
• So, I can trust my perceptions
• So, given premises 1 and 7 above, I can know that an external world of physical objects exists
PROBLEMS
• The cartesian Circle

• Concept of god is not innate
• Further, Descartes’ argument for external world relies on his arguments for the
existence of God. So, if Descartes’ arguments for God are not a priori, then neither is his
argument for the existence of the external world.
HUMES FORK
Relations of ideas Matters of fact

“either intuitively or demonstratively certain” (i.e. “The contrary of every matter of fact is still
an analytic truth) possible; because it can never imply a
contradiction” (i.e. a synthetic truth)
“discoverable by the mere operation of thought, Can’t be established purely by thought and thus
without dependence on what is any where require empirical observation to establish their
existent in the universe” (i.e. they are known a truth (i.e. they are known a posteriori)
priori)
The key feature of a relation of ideas is that The key feature of a matter of fact is that there
it cannot be denied without a contradiction (e.g. is no logical contradiction in it being false (e.g.
‘triangles do not have 3 sides’ is logically ‘grass is not green’ is false but it is not logically
contradictory and inconceivable to the mind) contradictory and so can be conceived of in the
mind (e.g. as red grass))
• Descartes’ external world argument also relies on a posteriori matters of fact. For
example, premise 2 states that “my perceptions cannot be caused by my own mind
because they are involuntary” but there is no contradiction that results from denying this
claim. For example, dreams are caused by one’s own mind but are nevertheless
involuntary and so we can coherently imagine that this premise is false. Thus, Descartes’
argument for the existence of the external world is not entirely a priori either and so
fails to establish rationalism.
INNATE KNOWLEDGE
• Innate knowledge is knowledge you’re born with and so doesn’t require experience to be
known. In other words, innate knowledge is a priori knowledge.
• The difference between the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate knowledge thesis
rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained.
• Propositional Knowledge - that babies are born with innate ability knowledge, such as
knowing how to breathe.
PLATO-
MENO
LEIBNIZ
Contingent truth Necessary truth

What is the case What must be the case
Could have been false in some other True in every possible world
possible world
E.g. “this website exists” is true but it E.g. “2+2=4” is true in every possible
would be false in some other possible world – it must always be true
world where I didn’t make it
• experience only tells us how things are (what’s contingently true) not how they must
be (what’s necessarily true). And yet we know that noncontradiction must always be true.
So, Leibniz argues, knowledge of necessary truths can’t come from experience – it must
be innate.
PROBLEMS
• Locke: “this argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate
principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such: because there are
none to which all mankind give an universal assent… “Whatsoever is, is,” and “It is
impossible for the same thing to be and not to be”; which, of all others, I think have the
most allowed title to innate… But yet I take liberty to say, that these propositions are so
far from having an universal assent, that there are a great part of mankind to whom they
are not so much as known… For, first, it is evident, that all children and idiots have not
the least apprehension or thought of them.”
• If innate knowledge did exist, it would have to be universal
• But there is no knowledge that is universal
• And, even if there were universal knowledge, this still wouldn’t prove that knowledge
was innate.
LEIBNIZ MARBLE EXAMPLE
• Locke show how all concepts and knowledge – from simple to complex – can be
explained as coming from experience in some way. And so, if we can explain all
knowledge and concepts using experience only, we don’t need innate knowledge.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rationalism and Empiricism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rationalism and Empiricism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RATIONALISM AND

• Analytic / Synthetic Truths

• Analytic –meaning of words-possibility of logical contradiction

Knowledge that can be Knowledge that can only be

Intuition and deduction

• Anything can be doubted

• dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

• “there is in me a certain passive faculty of perception, that is to say of receiving and

• The cartesian Circle

Relations of ideas Matters of fact

Contingent truth Necessary truth

You might also like