1

Elizabeth Quarles
Mr. Hubbard
Philosophy 1030
23 September 2016

Rationalism and Empiricism

What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition
about the world is true? This question comes down to two parts, innate ideas versus tabula rasa.
Its also the main argument between rationalists and empiricists. The dispute between rationalism
and empiricism relates to the amount of which human beings are dependent on sense experiment
in our attempt to obtain knowledge. Rationalists believe that reason does not require experience
in order to be understood and that all truths of the world occur in innate forms. Empiricists claim
that sense experience is the supreme source of all our concepts and knowledge. Plato, Aristotle,
Locke, and Descartes have all made a significant impact of the dispute between these two
beliefs. This paper examines the similarities and differences between these philosophers. It also
shows how rationalism and empiricism are alike and unalike.
Plato and Aristotle both had their beliefs about human knowledge. They formed their
studies on ideas that were alike, but their approaches were very different. In Platos dialogue
Meno and Phaedo, he presents the first proposal for innate ideas. He believes that human beings
are born with this understanding for the rules of the mind. He argues that understanding this is a
method of remembering. Plato calls this practice anamnesis. He writes that when a soul
enters a body, it forgets these rules, which is why there is a need for education. His main point in
his dialogues is that in order to attain knowledge, you must be educated to remember this

2
knowledge. On the other hand, Aristotle had a different view of the knowledge a person is born
with. His approach was somewhat similar to Platos concept. Aristotle believed that these ideas
barely existed and the only way to accomplish these ideas was through experience. Aristotle
consequently indicated that experience for the body and soul is better cultured that way, versus
just being educated to remember. Both of these Philosophers had excellent views on whether or
not we are born with an innate knowledge.
The more modern views over the argument of innate ideas became the main dispute over
rationalists and empiricists. Empiricists say that knowledge is obtained from experience and
rationalists think some specific ideas exist free of experience. The intuition and deduction thesis
is a theory that claims that we can know some propositions by intuition and still more by
deduction. Many empiricists, like Locke or Humes, were willing to accept this thesis only if it is
confined to propositions exclusively about about the relations among our own concepts. Since
this was possible, they accepted this theory and concluded that we can know by our intuition,
that our idea of God incorporates our concept of knowing everything. The debate on this theory
between rationalists and empiricism regards to propositions that have meaningful information
about the external world. Rationalists, like Descartes, think that we can know by intuition and
deduction that God exists and created the world, and that the angles of a triangle equal two right
angles. All of these statements are truths about an external reality self-sufficient of our thoughts.
Rationalists have a strong belief about the Intuition/Deduction thesis corresponding to our
substantive knowledge of the external world, but the empiricists questions on the natural strength
of intuition made an impressing argument for this thesis.
Descartes and Locke are both hesitant about knowledge. They were attempting to
discover solutions to end comparable problems like what knowledge is and the elements

3
connected with the process of obtaining knowledge. Just like Plato and Aristotle, they also
formed their studies on ideas that were similar, but their approaches were different. Locke was a
very practical thinker who focused his arguments around logic and reasoning. He believed that
humans encompassed no innate knowledge. He stated that the mind was a tabula rasa or blank
slate. Our ideas come from reflection and sensation, which means personal experience.
However, Descartes asserted that the senses were extremely important in acquiring knowledge
and that the human mind is based on what is inherently with us from birth. He also stated that
anything that can be doubted must not exist. Since he couldnt doubt his thoughts, he created the
phrase Cogito ergo sum or I think, therefore I am. Locke and Descartes both had strong
arguments to the dispute of innate knowledge. The innate concept thesis is another great theory
that is argued between these two groups that is demonstrated in both Descartess Meditations and
Lockes An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Descartes considers our ideas as
adventitious, invented by us, and innate. Adventitious ideas, such as our awareness of hot and
cold, are obtained only from experience. Innate ideas, such as our belief in God, is placed in our
minds by God at birth. My perception of the infinite, that is God, is in some way prior to my
perception of the finite, that is myself. For how could I understand that I doubted or desired
that is lacked somethingand that I was not wholly perfect, unless there were in me some idea
of a more perfect being which enabled me to recognize my own defects by comparison, (Third
Meditation, p. 94). The empiricists response to this theory is stated by Locke. The main problem
Locke has with Descartess theory for this thesis is that there is the problem of explaining what it
is for someone to have an innate concept. If having an innate concept mean consciously
providing it in the past and present, then Descartess position can always be argued and disputed.
Locke also states that there is no need to question innate concepts in the first place. He says we

4
can explain how experience gives us our ideas, even those that the rationalists consider to be
innate, and just the stuff that the rationalists consider to be the cause of them. These
philosophical debates between rationalists and empiricists ultimately concerns our position in
the world. To what extent do our power of reason and experience support our aim to know and
understand our situation?
In conclusion, this essay argued establishing factual knowledge is best achieved through a
compromise between rationalism and empiricism. Particularly, it is clear that human intellect
understands some necessary propositions in nature with complete certainty, free of experience.
And much of our life experiences require our senses to trigger ideas that can be later put to
practice. However, although both movements stand in opposition to one another, each has its
advantages that contribute to our search for knowledge. To avoid problems rationalism and
empiricism might cause, its necessary to consider the application of real-world knowledge when
deciding on the appropriate approach. Both theories work and both theories have flaws, but each
philosopher has a right to their own opinion.

Works Cited
Cottingham, J 1988, Background, The Rationalists, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.1-17.

Descartes, R 1641, 'Meditation II: The Nature of the Human Mind and How it is Better Known
than the Body, translated by John Cottingham in The Philosophical Writings of
Descartes Vol. II, 1962, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 29-41.

5
Hewitt, P.G 2008, Conceptual Physics Fundamentals, Pearson Addison Wesley, San Francisco.

Hume, D 1748, 'Of the Origin of Ideas', in Falkenstein, L (ed.), An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, 2011, Broadview Press, Peterborough, pp. 54-59