A personal take on the debate between rationalism and empiricism.
The study of knowledge, or epistemology, contains theoretical methods by which information is learned. Of these methods, two are most widely accepted. These two methods, rationalism and empiricism, are also the most widely debated methods of knowledge acquisition. Rationalism claims that knowledge is gained by a priori processes and intuition. Rationalism claims that knowledge is innate; however the level of innate knowledge contained by humans varies amongst rationalists. At the other end of the spectrum, empiricism claims that knowledge is gained largely by experience, observation, and sensory perception. These views pose a striking contrast and controversy within the theory of knowledge. Which view is correct, or is there even a correct view? As rationalism and empiricism are studied and compared, it becomes evident that empiricism is the "more correct" theory of the acquisition of knowledge. However, in order to believe so, there must be a differentiation between knowledge and behavior. According to the empirical scientific process, bodily behavior and function is rationalist. That is, it occurs without humans first learning how to breathe and pump blood with their heart. Knowledge however, refers to The British philosopher John Locke is credited with formulating the complete modern doctrine of empiricism. Locke proposed that, upon entrance into the world, the mind is a white paper upon which experiences leave their marks. According to Locke in his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" the predominant sources of ideas and knowledge are sensation and reflection. It seems that after receiving knowledge empirically, the human mind resorts to reflecting on the information. This reflection could ultimately lead to the internalization of knowledge, therefore making it seem innate upon recall of the information. Scottish philosopher David Hume's thoughts and theories regarding empiricism are the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document