empiricists vs rationalists critical thinking communication

• Corrections

Rationalism Vs. Empiricism 101: Which One is Right?

The debate between rationalists and empiricists is one of the fiercest and longest in the history of philosophy.

In the history of philosophy, and especially in the field of epistemology, there has never been a fiercer debate than the one between rationalists and empiricists. Rationalists argued that the ultimate source of our knowledge is human reason. On the other hand, empirically oriented thinkers thought that it is through our experience that we gain knowledge of the world, and it is the experience that determines and limits of our knowledge. But what did their arguments and objections against one another really consist of?

The Basics of Rationalism

First, let’s examine the philosophy of rationalism, and then move onto empiricism. We can define rationalism as a philosophical teaching about the relationship between man and the world, based on the conviction that reason (ratio) or intellect (intellectus) is the basic source of knowledge, the criterion of the truth of knowledge, and the means we use to gain knowledge about the world. Reason is also that which determines the possibilities and limits of human knowledge and the most significant feature of man as a moral and practical being. Rationalism has a rich tradition in the history of European philosophical schools. That’s why it’s important to examine its history throughout the centuries.

1. Rationalism in the Ancient Period

In the ancient period, rationalism was represented in the philosophical teachings of the Pythagorean, Elean, and atomistic schools. Their ontologies are built on the rationalist methodology represented in mathematical, logical, or theoretical speculative thought.

However, the full flowering of rationalism in antiquity coincides with the teachings of the leading philosophers of this era: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates’ enlightened rationalism, created at the height of the struggle with the sophists, manifests itself in the well-known dialogic skill of arriving at clear definitions of terms. This goal is inspired by Socrates’ conviction that virtues are obtainable only through knowledge. From there, he emphasizes the well-known imperative as the guiding principle of all his thinking and action: Know thyself .

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

However, Plato can be considered the true founder of ancient rationalism. With Plato, for the first time in ancient philosophy, we encounter a fully developed system of rationalism as a study of knowledge, its sources, objects, criteria, possibilities, and scope. In his teaching about ideas, Plato established a rationalist-founded objective idealism, and in its scope, he created his metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and so on.

Aristotle highly valued experience and its methods. However, he is nevertheless one of the most significant rationalists. As proof of that, we have his foundational works dedicated to logic. Thus, we can say that ancient rationalism reaches its peak in Aristotle’s Metaphysics .

2. Rationalism in the Modern Period (and Beyond)

European rationalism reaches its true flowering in the period known as modern philosophy. Three of the foremost luminaries of modern philosophical thought—Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz—are rationalists in the full sense of the word. Therefore, rationalism as a philosophical direction is mostly associated with the names of these philosophers.

Descartes is considered the founder of the rationalist theory of knowledge. Descartes established the position Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). He considered reason to be endowed with innate ideas and principles and as such, established it as the most important instrument of knowledge and the guarantor of truth. He advocated for the critical examination of reason and formulated its rules. Descartes also sought to raise the basic method of knowledge to the level of a universal scientific method according to the model of mathematics ( mathesis universalis ).

The second most significant rationalist is Spinoza . He’s important in the history of rationalism because of the systematic and consistent implementation of the deductive method following the pattern of geometry in his Ethics . The main point of his system is the demonstration of the inseparable connection of reason as the most significant cognitive power with the highest and most sublime goals of moral action.

Leibniz is considered the first real representative of the systematic application of rationalism in the sphere of knowledge. He discusses almost all the questions of the theory of knowledge that were discussed by his famous predecessors. Leibniz gave systematic rationalistic grounded answers to all questions about the origin, object, possibilities, limits, logical basis, and value ​​of human knowledge.

The speculative philosophy of the two eminent representatives of German classical idealist philosophy— Hegel and Schelling—can be considered a special form of rationalism. Their philosophical systems are evidence of an encyclopedic approach to all spheres of existence.

Following the historical timeline further, one can also talk about the rationalism of Karl Marx and his numerous followers—Marxists, as a separate type of rationalism: dialectical rationality.

Today there are also contemporary variants of rationalism, and among them, a special place belongs to the critical rationalism of Karl Popper.

3. The Philosophical Principles of Rationalism

It is important to analyze the postulates and arguments that rationalist thinkers provide in favor of their view.

1. Reason is the only source of all true knowledge

According to the rationalists, reason represents the only source or our only power for acquiring real knowledge: general and necessary truths. Although with certain differences, this thesis is accepted by all followers of rationalism.

For example, for Plato, the source of knowledge is in the “remembering of the soul” of its original residence in the “kingdom of ideas.” The power of reason, according to Plato, is the power of the soul to recall ideas and recognize them as such. Ideas are nothing but general and necessary truths. Thus, with the theory of the remembering of the soul (anamnesis), Plato laid the foundations of the Western rationalist theory of the origin of knowledge: the theory of innate ideas and principles of reason.

According to Descartes, reason is a natural light ( lumen naturale) made possible by innate ideas ( idee inatae ). Thus, both Descartes and Plato advocate the view of innate ideas and principles in man. However, not all ideas are innate, says Descartes, but only a special kind of ideas, such as the idea of ​​God, the ideas that express the general mathematical attitudes of arithmetic and geometry, and the laws and principles of logic. These ideas enable us to acquire knowledge of general and necessary truths. All attitudes derived from these ideas, which are general and necessary are themselves necessarily true because their truth is guaranteed by God himself.

For Leibniz, also, only reason can be the source of this knowledge, which is necessarily true.

2. The basic means of knowledge are intellectual intuition and abstract-logical thought operations

The object of knowledge, according to the rationalists, can only be grasped through the powers of immediate intellectual perception and through intellectual thought operations.

3. The truth of our knowledge is determined by the accordance of our thinking with logical rules and laws, or with general principles established by science

For rationalists, truth can only be determined through the correspondence of expressed views with the laws and principles of reason itself because that is where the rules and regularities of logic come from.

For Descartes, the criterion of the truth of our statements is the clarity and distinctness as a feature of a certain type of statement. Only those statements that impose themselves as self-evident truths, so that we do not allow the slightest possibility of doubting them, are acceptable to science and philosophy.

The Basics of Empiricism

Empiricism is a philosophical teaching based on the belief that all human practical and theoretical activity is based on experience. As opposed to rationalism, empiricism claims that the source of our knowledge and the criterion of truth is not reason but experience. Experience is the means we use to gain knowledge, and it is also what determines truth in the world.

Instead of rationalism, which claims that reason is endowed with an apparatus that enables us to acquire knowledge as well as innate ideas, empiricism claims that there is nothing in reason that has not previously passed through the senses. So, according to the empiricists, the senses are the first stage of acquiring knowledge, and all knowledge must pass through the senses.

1. Empiricism in the Ancient Period

Both empiricism and rationalism have their own rich history in the Western philosophical tradition. We find the empiricist approach to solving philosophical problems even among ancient thinkers. These include the sophists Protagoras and Antiphon, as well as the Cyrene Aristippus. Empiricist views were also advocated by the ancient skeptics, especially Sextus Empiricus.

Two fundamental philosophical positions are attributed to the sophist Protagoras: 1.) Man is the measure of all things, and 2.) As something appears to someone, that is exactly what it is. With these two points, Protagoras stands out as the first thinker in the Western tradition who gives complete legitimacy to the subjectivity of human knowledge. In fact, such subjectivity comes from the sphere of experience, which is necessary and inevitable in the creation of all our knowledge.

According to Antiphon, things can be truly known only through the senses, because our opinions (reason) are much more distant from nature.

Ancient empiricism is also characterized by the skepticism of academics, primarily that of Carneades and Sextus Empiricus. What they were trying to do was figure out ways that would go against the rationalist foundation of certain mathematical and metaphysical statements.

2. Empiricism in the Modern Period (and Beyond)

Empiricism experienced its true flourishing in the philosophy of the modern period. Its homeland is Britain, although it quickly spread to the European continent, to France and Germany specifically. The ground for the establishment of empiricism was laid by English thinkers from the scholastic period: Duns Scott, William Ockham, Roger Bacon, and others.

However, Francis Bacon can rightfully be considered the true founder of British modern-day empiricism. He is a significant empiricist because he presents the inductive method as a method of inference, as the true method of acquiring knowledge about nature and establishing truth. The method of induction would later be adopted by all empiricist philosophers. In addition to Bacon, great credit for the establishment of British empiricism also goes to Thomas Hobbes.

However, empiricism as one of the leading directions in the theory of knowledge is associated with the names of the famous trio of British philosophers: John Locke , George Berkeley, and David Hume . The three thinkers gave empiricism the true meaning and made it the leading school of thought of the period.

In the early nineteenth century, an important British empiricist was John Stuart Mill. In France, empiricism is represented by Helvetius and Kondiak, and in Germany, somewhat later, by Feuerbach and the Marxist Dietzgen.

Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century, empiricism is prominent in the teachings of neopositivism, pragmatism, and some variants of analytic philosophy.

3. The Philosophical Principles of Empiricism

What is the philosophy of empiricism? What are the main arguments for supporting the claim that experience is the ultimate source of our knowledge? What follows is a brief analysis of some of the most basic empiricist principles.

1. All our knowledge begins with the experiences that are acquired through the activity of the senses

Locke elaborates on this view best. It actually contains his critique of the teaching of innate ideas and principles. Only ideas can be true objects of our opinion for Locke. Our spirit operates with ideas and only with ideas when acquiring any knowledge. There are only two ways we can acquire ideas: through the experiences that our senses give us (sensation) or through the experience that results from the activities of our spirit on these ideas (reflection). So all our knowledge originates either from external experience (sensation) or from internal experience (reflection). But it is by no means possible, Locke proves, for us to have in our minds any innate idea, principle, or knowledge, which has not been produced in some of these two ways. That is why he says of man that he is born as a tabula rasa —a clean unwritten sheet of paper.

David Hume also elaborates on this view. There is no doubt, says Hume, that the real initiator of knowledge can only be experiential contents—the impressions that are acquired by sensory activity. From impressions as a starting point, one comes to representations, and from them to more complex cognitive content. Impressions, says Hume, are direct causes of representations, and not the other way around.

2. Basic means of knowledge are sensory factors: sensations and perceptions

All the “material” of knowledge, according to empiricists, is created through these two factors: sensation and perception. Thinking factors such as judgment and inference also play a role. But, empiricists say, they arise only on the basis of perception. In this way, the role of reason (intellect) begins from the experiential material acquired through sensations and perceptions. The creation of complex ideas, they say, is possible thanks to the fundamental and primary role of sensations and perceptions.

3. The truth of our knowledge is determined by our correspondence with things in everyday experience 

The validity of our knowledge, empiricists say, can only be determined by seeing whether our knowledge corresponds to the actual state of the world.

Criticisms of Rationalism and Empiricism

It’s almost inevitable not to think critically and wonder who is in the right and who is in the wrong, rationalists or empiricists. As most things in philosophy go, it turns out things are not so simple, and a definite answer isn’t readily available. However, we can point out some of the weak points and limitations of each of these teachings. In this final part of the article, we’ll take a brief look at some of the limitations of rationalism, as well as of empiricism.

When it comes to rationalism, one could argue that there is no adequate justification for the rationalistic teaching of the existence of innate ideas and principles. Starting from Plato’s world of ideas up to Descartes’ and Leibniz’s theories about the ideas and principles inherent in reason or the soul, rationalists base their teaching on the origin of knowledge on a kind of absolutization of the intellect. However, until today, there are no serious indications that a valid scientific basis can be found for such a thesis.

Empiricism, on the other hand, limits knowledge to what is available through sensory experience. From the position of empiricism, it is very difficult to understand the operations of thought, which is an enormously complex process. Without thought, synthesis, abstraction, generalization, specification, deduction, and induction, it is very difficult to explain how knowledge via the abstract concepts of mathematics, the basic principles of natural sciences, as well as the categories of social and philosophical disciplines, is possible. However, it is very plausible that we, in fact, possess this knowledge. It seems as if experience alone is not enough to grasp this kind of knowledge, especially sensory-perceptive experience. Empiricism, however, is unable to accept sources of knowledge that are independent of experience.

An alternative to the teachings of rationalism and empiricism is Immanuel Kant’s theory of knowledge . His theory is an attempt to overcome the weak points and limitations of both sides; he merges their strengths into one coherent whole. Kant says that knowledge begins with experience (sensibility), then through reason (categories), it ends in the mind (principles). Our knowledge, says Kant, comes from two basic sources of the spirit: the reception of representations (perceptions) and the ability to know an object with the help of these representations (thinking and understanding). Through the first source, the object is given to us, and through the second, it is imagined, says Kant. Accordingly, perceiving (sensibility) and understanding (reasoning) are the two essential powers of human cognition. Thus, Kant concludes that knowledge is impossible without both faculties.

What did Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle Think About Wisdom?

By Antonio Panovski BA Philosophy Antonio holds a BA in Philosophy from SS. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia. His main areas of interest are contemporary, as well as analytic philosophy, with a special focus on the epistemological aspect of them, although he’s currently thoroughly examining the philosophy of science. Besides writing, he loves cinema, music, and traveling.

Frequently Read Together

Plato’s Theaetetus: How Do We Know What We Know?

Aristotle’s Philosophy: Eudaimonia and Virtue Ethics

Descartes’ Skepticism: A Journey from Doubt to Existence

Rationalism Vs. Empiricism: A Comparative Analysis

Understanding the key differences.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they constuct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.

1.1 Rationalism

1.2 empiricism, 2. the intuition/deduction thesis, 3. the innate knowledge thesis, 4. the innate concept thesis, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries, 1. introduction.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes places within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. The defining questions of epistemology include the following.

What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true?

Knowing a particular proposition requires both that we believe it and that it be true, but it also clearly requires something more, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let's call this additional element ‘warrant’. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of this additional element.

How can we gain knowledge?

We can form true beliefs just by making some lucky guesses. How we can gain warranted beliefs is unclear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is not clear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist.

What are the limits of our knowledge?

Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true.

The disagreement between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the second question, regarding the sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as well. They may disagree over the nature of warrant or about the limits of our thought and knowledge. Our focus here will be on the competing rationalist and empiricist responses to the second question.

To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis : Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just "see" it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori , which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S’. Some rationalists take mathematics to be knowable by intuition and deduction. Some place ethical truths in this category. Some include metaphysical claims, such as that God exists, we have free will, and our mind and body are distinct substances. The more propositions rationalists include within the range of intuition and deduction, and the more controversial the truth of those propositions, the more radical their rationalism.

Rationalists also vary the strength of their view by adjusting their understanding of warrant. Some take warranted beliefs to be beyond even the slightest doubt and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of this high epistemic status. Others interpret warrant more conservatively, say as belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of that caliber.

Still another dimension of rationalism depends on how its proponents understand the connection between intuition, on the one hand, and truth, on the other. Some take intuition to be infallible, claiming that whatever we intuit must be true. Others allow for the possibility of false intuited propositions.

The second thesis associated with rationalism is the Innate Knowledge thesis.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis : We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori , independently of experience. The difference between them rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The Intuition/Deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning. The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along. According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier existence. According to others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is part of our nature through natural selection.

We get different versions of the Innate Knowledge thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S'. Once again, the more subjects included within the range of the thesis or the more controversial the claim to have knowledge in them, the more radical the form of rationalism. Stronger and weaker understandings of warrant yield stronger and weaker versions of the thesis as well..

The third important thesis of rationalism is the Innate Concept thesis.

The Innate Concept Thesis : We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. Some claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate Knowledge Thesis; a particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the known proposition are also innate. This is Locke's position ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Book I, Chapter IV, Section 1, p. 91). Others, such as Carruthers, argue against this connection ( Human Knowledge and Human Nature , pp. 53-54). The content and strength of the Innate Concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems removed from experience and the mental operations we can perform on what experience provides the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate than our concept of the latter for being innate.

The Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis, and the Innate Concept thesis are essential to rationalism: to be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of them. Two other closely related theses are generally adopted by rationalists, although one can certainly be a rationalist without adopting either of them. The first is that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason.

The Indispensability of Reason Thesis : The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience.

The second is that reason is superior to experience as a source of knowledge.

The Superiority of Reason Thesis : The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.

How reason is superior needs explanation, and rationalists have offered different accounts. One view, generally associated with Descartes ( Rules for the Direction of our Native Intelligence , Rules II and III, pp.1-4), is that what we know a priori is certain, beyond even the slightest doubt, while what we believe, or even know, on the basis of sense experience is at least somewhat uncertain. Another view, generally associated with Plato ( Republic 479e-484c), locates the superiority of a priori knowledge in the objects known. What we know by reason alone, a Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e.g. unchanging, eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what are aware of through sense experience.

Most forms of rationalism involve notable commitments to other philosophical positions. One is a commitment to the denial of scepticism for at least some area of knowledge. If we claim to know some truths by intuition or deduction or to have some innate knowledge, we obviously reject scepticism with regard to those truths. Rationalism in the form of the Intuition/Deduction thesis is also committed to epistemic foundationalism, the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths.

Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

The Empiricism Thesis : We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori , dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they need not. The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all , by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for certain subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is not that we gain knowledge by indispensable reason, but that we do not know at all.

I have stated the basic claims of rationalism and empiricism so that each is relative to a particular subject area. Rationalism and empiricism, so relativized, need not conflict. We can be rationalists in mathematics or a particular area of mathematics and empiricists in all or some of the physical sciences. Rationalism and empiricism only conflict when formulated to cover the same subject. Then the debate, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists has implications for the classification schemes often employed in the history of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to describe the Early Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leading up to Kant. It is standard practice to group the major philosophers of this period as either rationalists or empiricists and to suggest that those under one heading share a common agenda in opposition to those under the other. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the British Empiricists. Such general classification schemes must be viewed with caution. The views of the individual philosophers are more subtle and complex than the simple-minded classification suggests. (See Loeb (1981) and Kenny (1986) for important discussions of this point.) Locke rejects rationalism in the form of any version of the Innate Knowledge or Innate Concept theses, but he nonetheless adopts the Intuition/Deduction thesis with regard to our knowledge of God's existence. Descartes and Locke have remarkably similar views on the nature of our ideas, even though Descartes takes many to be innate, while Locke ties them all to experience. The rationalist/empiricist classification also encourages us to expect the philosophers on each side of the divide to have common research programs in areas beyond epistemology. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are mistakenly seen as applying a reason-centered epistemology to a common metaphysical agenda, with each trying to improve on the efforts of the one before, while Locke, Berkeley and Hume are mistakenly seen as gradually rejecting those metaphysical claims, with each consciously trying to improve on the efforts of his predecessors. In short, the labels ‘rationalist’ and ‘empiricist,’ as well as the slogan that is the title of this essay, ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism,’ used carelessly can retard rather than advance our understanding.

Nonetheless, an important debate properly described as ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism’ is joined whenever the claims for each view are formulated to cover the same subject. What is perhaps the most interesting form of the debate occurs when we take the relevant subject to be truths about the external world. A full-fledged rationalist with regard to our knowledge of the external world holds that some external world truths can and must be known a priori , that some of the ideas required for that knowledge are and must be innate, and that this knowledge is superior to any that experience could ever provide. The full-fledged empiricist about our knowledge of the external world replies that, when it comes to the nature of the world beyond our own minds, experience is our sole source of information. Reason might inform us of the relations among our ideas, but those ideas themselves can only be gained, and any truths about the external reality they represent can only be known, on the basis of sense experience. This debate concerning our knowledge of the external world will generally be our main focus in what follows.

The Intuition/Deduction thesis claims that we can know some propositions by intuition and still more by deduction. Many empiricists have been willing to accept the thesis so long as it is restricted to propositions solely about the relations between our own concepts. We can, they agree, know by intuition that our concept of God includes our concept of eternal existence. Just by examining the concepts, we can intellectually grasp that the one includes the other. The debate between rationalists and empiricists is joined when the former assert, and the latter deny, the Intuition/Deduction Thesis with regard to propositions that contain substantive information about the external world. Rationalists, such as Descartes, have claimed that we can know by intuition and deduction that God exists and created the world, that our mind and body are distinct substances, and that the angles of a triangle equal two right angles, where all of these claims are truths about an external reality independent of our thought. Such substantive versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis are our concern in this section.

One defense of the Intuition/Deduction thesis assumes that we know some substantive external world truths, adds an analysis of what knowledge requires, and concludes that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Descartes claims that knowledge requires certainty and that certainty about the external world is beyond what empirical evidence can provide. We can never be sure our sensory impressions are not part of a dream or a massive, demon orchestrated, deception. Only intuition and deduction can provide the certainty needed for knowledge, and, given that we have some substantive knowledge of the external world, the Intuition/Deduction thesis is true. As Descartes tells us in his Rules for the Direction of our Native Intelligence , "all knowledge is certain and evident cognition" (Rule II, p. 1) and when we "review all the actions of the intellect by means of which we are able to arrive at a knowledge of things with no fear of being mistaken," we "recognize only two: intuition and deduction" (Rule III, p. 3).

This line of argument is one of the least compelling in the rationalist arsenal. First, the assumption that knowledge requires certainty comes at a heavy cost, as it rules out so much of what we commonly take ourselves to know in the regular course of events. Second, as many contemporary rationalists accept, intuition is not always a source of certain knowledge. The possibility of a deceiver gives us a reason to doubt our intuitions as well as our empirical beliefs. For all we know, a deceiver might cause us to intuit false propositions, just as he might cause us to have perceptions of nonexistent objects. Descartes's classic way of meeting this challenge in the Meditations is to argue that we can know with certainty that no such deceiver interferes with our intuitions and deductions. They are infallible, as God guarantees their truth. The problem, known as the Cartesian Circle, is that Descartes's account of how we gain this knowledge begs the question, by attempting to deduce the conclusion that all our intuitions are true from intuited premises. Moreover, his account does not touch a remaining problem that he himself notes in the Rules (Rule VII, p. 7): Deductions of any appreciable length rely on our fallible memory.

A more plausible argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis again assumes that we know some particular, external world truths, and then appeals to the nature of what we know, rather than to the nature of knowledge itself, to argue that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Leibniz in the New Essays on Human Understanding tells us the following.

The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. … From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them… (Preface, pp. 150-151)

Leibniz goes on to describe our mathematical knowledge as "innate," and his argument may be directed to support the Innate Knowledge Thesis rather than the Intuition/Deduction Thesis. For our purposes here, we can relate it to the latter, however: We have substantive knowledge about the external world in mathematics, and what we know in that area, we know to be necessarily true. Experience cannot warrant beliefs about what is necessarily the case. Hence, experience cannot be the source of our knowledge. The best explanation of our knowledge is that we gain it by intuition and deduction. Leibniz mentions logic, metaphysics and morals as other areas in which our knowledge similarly outstrips what experience can provide, providing the basis for an appeal to intuition and deduction. Judgments in logic and metaphysics involve forms of necessity beyond what experience can support. Judgments in morals involve a form of obligation or value that lies beyond experience, which only informs us about what is the case rather than about what ought to be.

The strength of this argument varies with its examples of purported knowledge. Insofar as we focus on controversial claims in metaphysics, e.g. that God exists, that our mind is a distinct substance from our body, the initial premise that we know the claims is less than compelling. Taken with regard to other areas, however, the argument clearly has legs. We know a great deal of mathematics, and what we know, we know to be necessarily true. None of our experiences warrants a belief in such necessity, and we do not seem to base our knowledge on any experiences. The warrant that provides us with knowledge arises from an intellectual grasp of the propositions which is clearly part of our learning. Similarly, we seem to have such moral knowledge as that, all other things being equal, it is wrong to break a promise and that pleasure is intrinsically good. No empirical lesson about how things are can warrant such knowledge of how they ought to be.

This argument for the Intuition/Deduction Thesis raises additional questions which rationalists must answer. Insofar as they maintain that our knowledge of necessary truths in mathematics or elsewhere by intuition and deduction is substantive knowledge of the external world, they owe us an account of this form of necessity. Many empiricists stand ready to argue that "necessity resides in the way we talk about things, not in the things we talk about" (Willard van Orman Quine, Ways of Paradox and Other Essays , p. 174). Similarly, if rationalists claim that our knowledge in morals is knowledge of an objective form of obligation, they owe us an account of how objective values are part of a world of apparently valueless facts.

Perhaps most of all, rationalist defenders of the Intuition/Deduction thesis owe us an account of what intuition is and how it provides warranted true beliefs about the external world. What is it to intuit a proposition and how does that act of intuition support a warranted belief? Any intellectual faculty, whether it be sense perception or intuition, provides us with warranted beliefs and so knowledge only if it is generally reliable. The reliability of sense perception stems from the causal connection between how external objects are and how we experience them. What accounts for the reliability of our intuitions regarding the external world? Is our intuition of a particular true proposition the outcome of some causal interaction between ourselves and some aspect of the world? What aspect? What is the nature of this causal interaction? That the number three is prime does not appear to cause anything, let alone our intuition that it is prime.

These issues are made all the more pressing by the classic empiricist response to the argument. The reply is generally credited to Hume and begins with a division of all true propositions into two categories.

All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, "Relations of Ideas," and "Matters of Fact." Of the first are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic, and, in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to half of thirty expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would forever retain their certainty and evidence. Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner, nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality. ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section IV, Part 1, p. 40)

Intuition and deduction can provide us with knowledge of necessary truths such as those found in mathematics, but such knowledge is not substantive knowledge of the external world. It is only knowledge of the relations of our own ideas. So too for our knowledge in logic. If the rationalist shifts the argument so it appeals to knowledge in morals, Hume's reply is to offer an analysis of our moral concepts by which such knowledge is empirically gained knowledge of matters of fact.

Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt more properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it and endeavor to fix the standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general taste of mankind, or some other fact which may be the object of reasoning and inquiry. ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section XII, Part 3, p. 173)

If the rationalist appeals to our knowledge in metaphysics to support the argument, Hume denies that we have such knowledge.

If we take in our hand any volume--of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance--let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section XII, Part 3, p. 173)

An updated version of this general empiricist reply, with an increased emphasis on language and the nature of meaning, is given in the twentieth-century by A. J. Ayer's version of Logical Positivism. Adopting Positivism's Verification Theory of Meaning, Ayer assigns every cognitively meaningful sentence to one of two categories: either it is a tautology, and so true solely by virtue of the meaning of its terms and provides no substantive information about the world, or it is open to empirical verification. There is, then, no room for knowledge about the external world by intuition or deduction.

There can be no a priori knowledge of reality. For … the truths of pure reason, the propositions which we know to be valid independently of all experience, are so only in virtue of their lack of factual content … [By contrast] empirical propositions are one and all hypotheses which may be confirmed or discredited in actual sense experience. [ Language, Truth and Logic , pp. 86; 93-94]

The rationalists' argument for the Intuition/Deduction Thesis goes wrong at the start, according to empiricists, by assuming that we can have substantive knowledge of the external world that outstrips what experience can warrant. We cannot.

This empiricist reply faces challenges of its own. Our knowledge of mathematics seems to be about something more than our own concepts. Our knowledge of moral judgments seems to concern not just how we feel or act but how we ought to behave. The general principles that provide a basis for the empiricist view, e.g. Hume's overall account of our ideas, the Verification Principle of Meaning, are problematic in their own right. In various formulations, the Verification Principle fails its own test for having cognitive meaning. A careful analysis of Hume's Inquiry, relative to its own principles, may require us to consign large sections of it to the flames.

In all, rationalists have a strong argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis relative to our substantive knowledge of the external world, but its success rests on how well they can answer questions made all the more pressing by the classic empiricist reply.

The Innate Knowledge thesis joins the Intuition/Deduction thesis in asserting that we have a priori knowledge, but it does not offer intuition and deduction as the source of that knowledge. It takes our a priori knowledge to be part of our rational nature. Experience may trigger our awareness of this knowledge, but it does not provide us with it. The knowledge is already there.

Plato presents an early version of the Innate Knowledge thesis in the Meno as the doctrine of knowledge by recollection. The doctrine is motivated in part by a paradox that arises when we attempt to explain the nature of inquiry. How do we gain knowledge of a theorem in geometry? We inquire into the matter. Yet, knowledge by inquiry seems impossible ( Meno , 80d-e). We either already know the theorem at the start of our investigation or we do not. If we already have the knowledge, there is no place for inquiry. If we lack the knowledge, we don't know what we are seeking and cannot recognize it when we find it. Either way we cannot gain knowledge of the theorem by inquiry. Yet, we do know some theorems.

The doctrine of knowledge by recollection offers a solution. When we inquire into the truth of a theorem, we both do and do not already know it. We have knowledge in the form of a memory gained from our soul's knowledge of the theorem prior to its union with our body. We lack knowledge in that, in our soul's unification with the body, it has forgotten the knowledge and now needs to recollect it. In learning the theorem, we are, in effect, recalling what we already know.

Plato famously illustrates the doctrine with an exchange between Socrates and a young slave, in which Socrates guides the slave from ignorance to mathematical knowledge. The slave's experiences, in the form of Socrates' questions and illustrations, are the occasion for his recollection of what he learned previously. Plato's metaphysics provides additional support for the Innate Knowledge Thesis. Since our knowledge is of abstract, eternal Forms which clearly lie beyond our sensory experience, it is a priori .

Contemporary supporters of Plato's position are scarce. The initial paradox, which Plato describes as a "trick argument" ( Meno , 80e), rings sophistical. The metaphysical assumptions in the solution need justification. The solution does not answer the basic question: Just how did the slave's soul learn the theorem? The Intuition/Deduction thesis offers an equally, if not more, plausible account of how the slave gains knowledge a priori . Nonetheless, Plato's position illustrates the kind of reasoning that has caused many philosophers to adopt some form of the Innate Knowledge thesis. We are confident that we know certain propositions about the external world, but there seems to be no adequate explanation of how we gained this knowledge short of saying that it is innate. Its content is beyond what we directly gain in experience, as well as what we can gain by performing mental operations on what experience provides. It does not seem to be based on an intuition or deduction. That it is innate to us appears to be the best explanation.

Noam Chomsky argues along similar lines in presenting what he describes as a "rationalist conception of the nature of language" ("Recent Contributions to the Theory of Innate Ideas," p. 129). Chomsky argues that the experiences available to language learners are far too sparse to account for their knowledge of their language. To explain language acquisition, we must assume that learners have an innate knowledge of a universal grammar capturing the common deep structure of natural languages. It is important to note that Chomsky's language learners do not know particular propositions describing a universal grammar. They have a set of innate capacities or dispositions which enable and determine their language development. Chomsky gives us a theory of innate learning capacities or structures rather than a theory of innate knowledge. His view does not support the Innate Knowledge thesis as rationalists have traditionally understood it. As one commentator puts it, "Chomsky's principles … are innate neither in the sense that we are explicitly aware of them, nor in the sense that we have a disposition to recognize their truth as obvious under appropriate circumstances. And hence it is by no means clear that Chomsky is correct in seeing his theory as following the traditional rationalist account of the acquisition of knowledge" (Cottingham, Rationalism , p. 124).

Peter Carruthers ( Human Knowledge and Human Nature ) argues that we have innate knowledge of the principles of folk-psychology. Folk-psychology is a network of common-sense generalizations that hold independently of context or culture and concern the relationships of mental states to one another, to the environment and states of the body and to behavior ( Human Knowledge and Human Nature , p.115). It includes such beliefs as that pains tend to be caused by injury, that pains tend to prevent us from concentrating on tasks, and that perceptions are generally caused by the appropriate state of the environment. Carruthers notes the complexity of folk-psychology, along with its success in explaining our behavior and the fact that its explanations appeal to such unobservables as beliefs, desires, feelings and thoughts. He argues that the complexity, universality, and depth of folk-psychological principles outstrips what experience can provide, especially to young children who by their fifth year already know a great deal of it. This knowledge is also not the result of intuition or deduction; folk-psychological generalizations are not seen to be true in an act of intellectual insight. Carruthers concludes, "[The problem] concerning the child's acquisition of psychological generalizations cannot be solved, unless we suppose that much of folk-psychology is already innate, triggered locally by the child's experience of itself and others, rather than learned" ( Human Knowledge and Human Nature , p. 121).

Empiricists, and some rationalists, attack the Innate Knowledge thesis in two main ways. First, they offer accounts of how sense experience or intuition and deduction provide the knowledge that is claimed to be innate. Second, they directly criticize the Innate Knowledge thesis itself. The classic statement of this second line of attack is presented by Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Locke raises the issue of just what innate knowledge is. Particular instances of knowledge are supposed to be in our minds as part of our rational make-up, but how are they "in our minds"? If the implication is that we all consciously have this knowledge, it is plainly false. Propositions often given as examples of innate knowledge, even such plausible candidates as the principle that the same thing cannot both be and not be, are not consciously accepted by children and idiots. If the point of calling such principles "innate" is not to imply that they are or have been consciously accepted by all rational beings, then it is hard to see what the point is. "No proposition can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, which it never yet was conscious of" ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Book I, Chapter II, Section 5, p. 61). Proponents of innate knowledge might respond that some knowledge is innate in that we have the capacity to have it. That claim, while true, is of little interest, however. "If the capacity of knowing, be the natural impression contended for, all the truths a man ever comes to know, will, by this account, be every one of them, innate; and this great point will amount to no more, but only an improper way of speaking; which whilst it pretends to assert the contrary, says nothing different from those, who deny innate principles. For nobody, I think, ever denied, that the mind was capable of knowing several truths" ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Book I, Chapter II, Section 5, p. 61). Locke thus challenges defenders of the Innate Knowledge thesis to present an account of innate knowledge that allows their position to be both true and interesting. A narrow interpretation of innateness faces counterexamples of rational individuals who do not meet its conditions. A generous interpretation implies that all our knowledge, even that clearly provided by experience, is innate.

Defenders of innate knowledge have taken up Locke's challenge. Consider Peter Carruthers' reply.

We have noted that while one form of nativism claims (somewhat implausibly) that knowledge is innate in the sense of being present as such (or at least in propositional form) from birth, it might also be maintained that knowledge is innate in the sense of being innately determined to make its appearance at some stage in childhood. This latter thesis is surely the most plausible version of nativism. ( Human Knowledge and Human Understanding , p. 51)

Carruthers claims that our innate knowledge is determined through evolutionary selection (p. 111). Evolution has resulted in our being determined to know certain things (e.g. principles of folk-psychology) at particular stages of our life, as part of our natural development. Experiences provide the occasion for our consciously believing the known propositions but not the basis for our knowledge of them (p. 52). Carruthers thus has a ready reply to Locke's counterexamples of children and idiots who do not believe propositions claimed to be instances of innate knowledge. The children have not yet reached the proper stage of development; the idiots are persons in whom natural development has broken down (pp. 49-50).

A serious problem for the Innate Knowledge thesis remains, however. We know a proposition only if it is true, we believe it and our belief is warranted. Rationalists who assert the existence of innate knowledge are not just claiming that, as a matter of human evolution, God's design or some other factor, at a particular point in our development, certain sorts of experiences trigger our belief in particular propositions in a way that does not involve our learning them from the experiences. Their claim is even bolder: In at least some of these cases, our empirically triggered, but not empirically warranted, belief is nonetheless warranted and so known. How can these beliefs be warranted if they do not gain their warrant from the experiences that cause us to have them or from intuition and deduction?

Some rationalists think that a reliabilist account of warrant provides the answer. According to Reliabilism, beliefs are warranted if they are formed by a process that generally produces true beliefs rather than false ones. The true beliefs that constitute our innate knowledge are warranted, then, because they are formed as the result of a reliable belief-forming process. Carruthers maintains that "Innate beliefs will count as known provided that the process through which they come to be innate is a reliable one (provided, that is, that the process tends to generate beliefs that are true)" ( Human Nature and Human Knowledge , p. 77). He argues that natural selection results in the formation of some beliefs and is a truth-reliable process.

The appeal to Reliabilism, or a similar causal theory of warrant, may well be the best way for rationalists to develop the Innate Knowledge thesis. They have a difficult row to hoe, however. First, such accounts of warrant are themselves quite controversial. Second, rationalists must give an account of innate knowledge that maintains and explains the distinction between innate knowledge and a posteriori knowledge, and it is not clear that they will be able to do so within such an account of warrant. Suppose for the sake of argument that we have innate knowledge of some proposition, P. What makes our knowledge that P innate? To sharpen the question, what difference between our knowledge that P and a clear case of a posteriori knowledge, say our knowledge that something is red based on our current visual experience of a red table, makes the former innate and the latter not innate? In each case, we have a true, warranted belief. In each case, presumably, our belief gains its warrant from the fact that it meets a particular causal condition, e.g., it is produced by a reliable process. In each case, the causal process is one in which an experience causes us to believe the proposition at hand (that P; that something is red), for, as defenders of innate knowledge admit, our belief that P is "triggered" by an experience, as is our belief that something is red. The insight behind the Innate Knowledge thesis seems to be that the difference between our innate and a posteriori knowledge lies in the relation between our experience and our belief in each case. The experience that causes our belief that P does not "contain" the information that P, while our visual experience of a red table does "contain" the information that something is red. Yet, exactly what is the nature of this containment relation between experiences and belief contents that is missing in the one case but present in the other? The nature of the experience-belief relation seems quite similar in each. The causal relation between the experience that triggers our belief that P and our belief that P is contingent, as is the fact that the belief-forming process involved is reliable. The same is true of our experience of a red table and our belief that something is red. The causal relation between the experience and our belief is again contingent. We might have been so constructed that the experience we describe as "being appeared to redly" caused us to believe, not that something is red, but that something is hot. The process that takes us from the experince to our belief is also only contingently reliable. Moreover, if our experience of a red table "contains" the information that something is red, then that fact, not the existence of a reliable belief-forming process between the two, should be the reason why the experience warrants our belief. By appealing to Reliablism, or some other causal theory of warrant, rationalists may obtain a way to explain how innate knowledge can be warranted. They still need to show how their explanation supports an account of the difference between innate knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.

According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts have not been gained from experience. They are instead part of our rational make-up, and experience simply triggers a process by which we consciously grasp them. The main concern motivating the rationalist should be familiar by now: the content of some concepts seems to outstrip anything we could have gained from experience. An example of this reasoning is presented by Descartes in the Meditations . Descartes classifies our ideas as adventitious, fictitious, and innate. Adventitious ideas, such as a sensation of heat, are gained directly through sense experience. Fictitious ideas, such as our idea of a hippogriff, are created by us from other ideas we possess. Innate ideas, such as our ideas of God, of extended matter, of substance and of a perfect triangle, are placed in our minds by God at creation. Consider Descartes's argument that our concept of God, as an infinitely perfect being, is innate. Our concept of God is not directly gained in experience, as particular tastes, sensations and mental images might be. Its content is beyond what we could ever construct by applying available mental operations to what experience directly provides. From experience, we can gain the concept of a being with finite amounts of various perfections, one, for example, that is finitely knowledgeable, powerful and good. We cannot however move from these empirical concepts to the concept of a being of infinite perfection. ("I must not think that, just as my conceptions of rest and darkness are arrived at by negating movement and light, so my perception of the infinite is arrived at not by means of a true idea but by merely negating the finite," Descartes, Third Meditation, p. 94.) Descartes supplements this argument by another. Not only is the content of our concept of God beyond what experience can provide, the concept is a prerequisite for our employment of the concept of finite perfection gained from experience. ("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 something--and 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," Descartes, Third Meditation, p. 94).

An empiricist response to this general line of argument is given by Locke ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Book I, Chapter IV, Sections 1-25, pp. 91-107). First, there is the problem of explaining what it is for someone to have an innate concept. If having an innate concept entails consciously entertaining it at present or in the past, then Descartes's position is open to obvious counterexamples. Young children and people from other cultures do not consciously entertain the concept of God and have not done so. Second, there is the objection that we have no need to appeal to innate concepts in the first place. Contrary to Descartes' argument, we can explain how experience provides all our ideas, including those the rationalists take to be innate, and with just the content that the rationalists attribute to them.

Leibniz offers a rationalist reply to the first concern in his New Essays on Human Understanding . Where Locke puts forth the image of the mind as a blank tablet on which experience writes, Leibniz offers us the image of a block of marble, the veins of which determine what sculpted figures it will accept.

This is why I have taken as an illustration a block of veined marble, rather than a wholly uniform block or blank tablets, that is to say what is called tabula rasa in the language of the philosophers. For if the soul were like those blank tablets, truths would be in us in the same way as the figure of Hercules is in a block of marble, when the marble is completely indifferent whether it receives this or some other figure. But if there were veins in the stone which marked out the figure of Hercules rather than other figures, this stone would be more determined thereto, and Hercules would be as it were in some manner innate in it, although labour would be needed to uncover the veins, and to clear them by polishing, and by cutting away what prevents them from appearing. It is in this way that ideas and truths are innate in us, like natural inclinations and dispositions, natural habits or potentialities, and not like activities, although these potentialities are always accompanied by some activities which correspond to them, though they are often imperceptible. ( New Essays on Human Understanding , Preface, p. 153)

Leibniz's metaphor contains an insight that Locke misses. The mind plays a role in determining the nature of its contents. This point does not, however, require the adoption of the Innate Concept thesis.

Rationalists have responded to the second part of the empiricist attack on the Innate Concept thesis--the empricists' claim that the thesis is without basis, as all our ideas can be explained as derived from experience--by focusing on difficulties in the empiricists' attempts to give such an explanation. The difficulties are illustrated by Locke's account. According to Locke, experience consists in external sensation and reflection. All our ideas are either simple or complex, with the former being received by us passively in sensation or reflection and the latter being built by the mind from simple materials through various mental operations. Right at the start, the account of how simple ideas are gained is open to an obvious counterexample acknowledged, but then set aside, by Hume in presenting his own empiricist theory. Consider the mental image of a particular shade of blue. If Locke is right, the idea is a simple one and should be passively received by the mind through experience. Hume points out otherwise.

Suppose therefore a person to have enjoyed his sight for thirty years and to have become perfectly acquainted with colors of all kinds, except one particular shade of blue, for instance, which it never has been his fortune to meet with; let all the different shades of that color, except that single one, be placed before him, descending gradually from the deepest to the lightest, it is plain that he will perceive a blank where that shade is wanting and will be sensible that there is a greater distance in that place between the contiguous colors than in any other. Now I ask whether it be possible for him, from his own imagination, to supply this deficiency and raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade, though it had never been conveyed to him by his senses? I believe there are but few will be of the opinion that he can… ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section II, pp. 29-30)

Even when it comes to such simple ideas as the image of a particular shade of blue, the mind is more than a blank slate on which experience writes.

Consider too our concept of a particular color, say red. Critics of Locke's account have pointed out the weaknesses in his explanation of how we gain such a concept by the mental operation of abstraction on individual cases. For one thing, it makes the incorrect assumption that various instances of a particular concept share a common feature. Carruthers puts the objection as follows.

In fact problems arise for empiricists even in connection with the very simplest concepts, such as those of colour. For it is false that all instances of a given colour share some common feature. In which case we cannot acquire the concept of that colour by abstracting the common feature of our experience. Thus consider the concept red . Do all shades of red have something in common? If so, what? It is surely false that individual shades of red consist, as it were, of two distinguishable elements a general redness together with a particular shade. Rather, redness consists in a continuous range of shades, each of which is only just distinguishable from its neighbors. Acquiring the concept red is a matter of learning the extent of the range. ( Human Nature and Human Knowledge , p. 59)

For another thing, Locke's account of concept acquisition from particular experiences seems circular.

As it stands, however, Locke's account of concept acquisition appears viciously circular. For noticing or attending to a common feature of various things presupposes that you already possess the concept of the feature in question. (Carruthers, Human Nature and Human Knowledge , p. 55)

Consider in this regard Locke's account of how we gain our concept of causation.

In the notice that our senses take of the constant vicissitude of things, we cannot but observe, that several particulars, both qualities and substances; begin to exist; and that they receive this their existence from the due application and operation of some other being. From this observation, we get our ideas of cause and effect. ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Book II, Chapter 26, Section 1, pp. 292-293)

We get our concept of causation from our observation that some things receive their existence from the application and operation of some other things. Yet, we cannot make this observation unless we already have the concept of causation. Locke's account of how we gain our idea of power displays a similar circularity.

The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself, and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. ( Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Chapter XXI, Section 1, pp. 219-220)

We come by the idea of power though considering the possibility of changes in our ideas made by experiences and our own choices. Yet, to consider this possibility—of some things making a change in others—we must already have a concept of power.

One way to meet at least some of these challenges to an empiricist account of the origin of our concepts is to revise our understanding of the content of our concepts so as to bring them more in line with what experience will clearly provide. Hume famously takes this approach. Beginning in a way reminiscent of Locke, he distinguishes between two forms of mental contents or "perceptions," as he calls them: impressions and ideas. Impressions are the contents of our current experiences: our sensations, feelings, emotions, desires, and so on. Ideas are mental contents derived from impressions. Simple ideas are copies of impressions; complex ideas are derived from impressions by "compounding, transposing, augmenting or diminishing" them. Given that all our ideas are thus gained from experience, Hume offers us the following method for determining the content of any idea and thereby the meaning of any term taken to express it.

When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea (as is but too frequent), we need but inquire from what impression is that supposed idea derived ? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will confirm our suspicion. ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section II, p. 30)

Using this test, Hume draws out one of the most important implications of the empiricists' denial of the Innate Concept thesis. If experience is indeed the source of all ideas, then our experiences also determine the content of our ideas. Our ideas of causation, of substance, of right and wrong have their content determined by the experiences that provide them. Those experiences, Hume argues, are unable to support the content that many rationalists and some empiricists, such as Locke, attribute to the corresponding ideas. Our inability to explain how some concepts, with the contents the rationalists attribute to them, are gained from experience should not lead us to adopt the Innate Concept thesis. It should lead us to accept a more limited view of the contents for those concepts, and thereby a more limited view of our ability to describe and understand the world.

Consider, for example, our idea of causation. Descartes takes it to be innate. Locke offers an apparently circular account of how it is gained from experience. Hume's empiricist account severely limits its content. Our idea of causation is derived from a feeling of expectation rooted in our experiences of the constant conjunction of similar causes and effects.

It appears, then, that this idea of a necessary connection among events arises from a number of similar instances which occur, of the constant conjunction of these events; nor can that idea ever be suggested by any one of these instances surveyed in all possible lights and positions. But there is nothing in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar, except only that after a repetition of similar instances the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant and to believe that it will exist. This connection, therefore, which we feel in the mind, this customary transition of the imagination from one object to its usual attendant, is the sentiment or impression from which we form the idea of power or necessary connection. ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section VII, Part 2, p. 86)

The source of our idea in experience determines its content.

Suitably to this experience, therefore, we may define a cause to be an object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second… We may, therefore, suitably to this experience, form another definition of cause and call it an object followed by another, and whose appearance always conveys the thought of the other . ( Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section VII, Part 2, p. 87)

Our claims, and any knowledge we may have, about causal connections in the world turn out, given the limited content of our empirically based concept of causation, to be claims and knowledge about the constant conjunction of events and our own feelings of expectation. Thus, the initial disagreement between rationalists and empiricists about the source of our ideas leads to one about their content and thereby the content of our descriptions and knowledge of the world.

Works Cited

• Ayer, A. J., 1952, Language, Truth and Logic , New York: Dover Publications.
• Carruthers, P., 1992, Human Knowledge and Human Nature , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Descartes, R., 1628, Rules for the Direction of our Native Intelligence , in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings , transl. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Descartes, R., 1641, Meditations , in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings , transl. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Descartes, R. 1644, Principles of Philosophy , in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings , transl. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Hume, D., 1748, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- Merrill, 1955.
• Kenny, A., 1986, Rationalism, Empiricism and Idealism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leinbiz, G., c1704, New Essays on Human Understanding , in Leinbiz: Philosophical Writings , ed. G.H.R. Parkinson, transl. Mary Morris and G.H.R. Parkinson, London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1973.
• Locke, J., 1690, An Essay on Human Understanding , ed. Woolhouse, Roger, London: Peguin Books, 1997.
• Loeb, L., 1981, From Descartes to Hume: Continental Metaphysics and the Development of Modern Philosophy , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Plato, Meno , transl. W. K. C. Guthrie, Plato: Collected Dialogues , edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Related Works

• Adams, R., 1975, "Where Do Our Ideas Come From? Descartes vs Locke", reprinted in Stitch S. (ed.) Innate Ideas , Berkeley, CA: California University Press.
• Aune, B., 1970, Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An Introduction , New York: Random House.
• Block, N., 1981, Essays in Philosophy of Psychology II , London: Methuen, Part Four.
• Bonjour, L., 1998, In Defense of Pure Reason , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cottingham, J., 1984, Rationalism , London: Paladin Books.
• Chomsky, N., 1975, "Recent Contributions to the Theory of Innate Ideas", reprinted in Stitch, S. (ed.) Innate Ideas , Berkeley, CA: California University Press.
• Chomsky, N., 1988, Language and Problems of Knowledge , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Fodor, J., 1975, The Language of Thought , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Fodor, J., 1981, Representations , Brighton: Harvester.
• Kripke, S., 1980, Naming and Necessity , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Quine, W. V. O., 1951, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," in W.V.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951.
• Stitch, S., 1975, Innate Ideas , Berkeley, CA: California University Press.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

-->analytic-synthetic distinction --> | a priori justification and knowledge | Ayer, Alfred Jules | Berkeley, George | concepts | Descartes, René | -->Descartes's theory of ideas --> | epistemology | -->historical controversies surrounding innateness --> | Hume, David | innate/acquired distinction | -->innateness and language --> | justification, epistemic: foundationalist theories of | -->Kant, Immanuel --> | knowledge: analysis of | Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm | Locke, John | Plato | -->Quine, Willard van Orman --> | reliabilism | skepticism | Spinoza, Baruch

Newest Articles

• Exploring Naturalistic, Immanent and Transcendental Aesthetics
• Sublime: An Introduction to Aesthetic and Philosophical Terms
• Exploring Plato's Republic
• The Stoic School: An Overview
• Metaphysics
• Theory of Forms
• Epistemology
• Materialism
• Moral relativism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics
• Normative ethics
• Applied ethics
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of art
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of beauty
• Nature of Art
• Philosophy of Film
• Philosophy of Music
• Deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Justification
• Perception and Knowledge
• Beliefs and Truth
• Modern philosophy
• Romanticism
• Analytic philosophy
• Enlightenment philosophy
• Existentialism
• Enlightenment
• Ancient philosophy
• Classical Greek philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Pre-Socratic philosophy
• Hellenistic philosophy
• Presocratic philosophy
• Rationalism
• Scholasticism
• Jewish philosophy
• Early Islamic philosophy
• Reasoning and Argumentation

Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer

• Critical Thinking
• Fallacies and logical errors
• Skepticism and doubt
• Creative Thinking
• Lateral thinking
• Thought experiments
• Argumentation and Logic
• Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Reasoning and Problem-Solving
• Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
• Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
• Philosophical Writing and Analysis
• Argumentative Writing and Analysis
• Interpreting Philosophical Texts
• Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
• Philosophical Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Research Design and Methodology
• Ethics and Morality
• Aesthetics and Beauty
• Metaphysical terms
• Ontological argument
• Ethical terms
• Aesthetic terms
• Metaphysical theories
• Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Aristotle's Four Causes
• Plato's Theory of Forms
• Hegel's Dialectic
• Ethical theories
• Aesthetic theories
• John Dewey's aesthetic theory
• Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
• Modern philosophical texts
• Foucault's The Order of Things
• Descartes' Meditations
• Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Ancient philosophical texts
• Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Plato's Republic
• Ancient philosophers
• Modern philosophers
• Modern philosophical schools
• German Idealism
• British Empiricism
• Ancient philosophical schools
• The Skeptic school
• The Cynic school
• The Stoic school
• The Epicurean school
• The Socratic school
• Philosophy of Language
• Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
• Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Realism and Rationalism
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
• Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Philosophy of Mind
• Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
• Materialism and Physicalism
• Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Philosophy of Religion
• Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Religious Experience and Faith
• Metaphysical Theories
• Idealism and Realism
• Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
• Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Epistemological Theories
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
• Rationalism and Empiricism
• Foundationalism and Coherentism
• Aesthetic Theories
• Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
• Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
• Ethical Theories
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
• Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
• Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
• Metaphysical Terms
• Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
• Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
• Logic and Argumentation Terms
• Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
• Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
• Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
• Epistemological Terms
• Perception and Knowledge Claims
• Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
• Justification, Beliefs and Truths
• Ethical Terms
• Modern Texts
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
• Medieval Texts
• The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
• The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
• The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
• Ancient Texts
• The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
• The Republic by Plato
• Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
• Philosophical Theories

The theories of rationalism and empiricism have been a source of fascination and debate among philosophers for centuries. The two sides of the debate can be seen as complementary, each holding its own truths, and both offering insight into the nature of knowledge. On one side, rationalism is the belief that reason is the primary source of knowledge, and on the other, empiricism is the belief that experience and observation are the main sources of knowledge. In this article, we will explore both theories in greater depth, discussing their merits, demerits, and applications in our modern world. The main difference between rationalism and empiricism lies in their respective approaches to epistemology.

Rationalists believe that knowledge can be obtained through reasoning, while empiricists believe that knowledge is derived from experience. The proponents of each theory differ in how they view the source of knowledge; for instance, rationalists may focus on logic and abstract concepts, while empiricists may focus on sensory experiences or observation. To better understand these differences, let's look at some examples. According to rationalism, knowledge can be gained by understanding the basic principles of mathematics, such as geometry or algebra.

This type of knowledge relies heavily on logical reasoning and deduction. On the other hand, empirical evidence is based on observation and experience. An example would be scientific experimentation; by observing the results of an experiment, scientists can draw conclusions about a given phenomenon. It is important to note that there are overlaps between the two theories; for instance, both approaches can be used to gain knowledge about the natural world.

However, it is important to note that rationalists tend to rely more heavily on logic, while empiricists tend to rely more heavily on observation. The implications of these two theories are far-reaching; they have shaped our understanding of knowledge and influenced how we approach the acquisition of new information. For instance, the scientific method is based on an empirical approach; scientists use observation and experimentation to test hypotheses and draw conclusions. Similarly, philosophy has been shaped by rationalist thought; philosophers use logical reasoning to explore difficult questions about life and existence.

Examples of Rationalism and Empiricism

Rationalism vs empiricism.

Rationalism is a theory that emphasizes the power of reason as the primary source of knowledge, whereas empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and observation as the primary source of knowledge. Rationalists believe that certain truths exist independently of experience and can be discovered through pure reason. They assert that knowledge can be gained through the use of deductive reasoning, allowing one to draw conclusions from general principles that are accepted as true. On the other hand, empiricists believe that all knowledge is derived from experience and observation.

They argue that all knowledge must be gained through direct observation or experimentation. Rationalists tend to focus on abstract concepts and ideas, while empiricists are more likely to focus on concrete facts and observations. Rationalists also emphasize the importance of logic and argumentation, while empiricists are more likely to rely on trial and error. Additionally, rationalists believe that certain truths are innate and can be discovered through logical reasoning, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired through experience.

Implications of Rationalism and Empiricism

While Rationalism and Empiricism have many differences, both theories have had a significant impact on our understanding of knowledge. Rationalism, as proposed by René Descartes, holds that knowledge can be acquired through logical reasoning and deduction. This is in contrast to Empiricism, which holds that knowledge is derived from experience and observation. The implications of Rationalism and Empiricism can be seen in many aspects of modern life.

For instance, when it comes to scientific research, the two theories have different implications. In the case of Rationalism, scientists may focus on creating hypotheses based on logical deductions, while Empiricists may focus on collecting data and analyzing empirical evidence. In addition, the implications of Rationalism and Empiricism can also be seen in the way we approach problem solving. In particular, Rationalists tend to be more analytical and logical, while Empiricists tend to be more creative and open-minded.

Finally, the implications of Rationalism and Empiricism can also be seen in our educational system. For example, students are often taught to think critically and analytically, which reflects the influence of Rationalism. On the other hand, students are also taught to observe and analyze evidence, which reflects the influence of Empiricism. Overall, Rationalism and Empiricism are two of the most influential philosophical theories in the area of epistemology, or the study of knowledge.

Both theories have had a significant impact on our understanding of knowledge, with each theory having its own implications for modern life. In conclusion, rationalism and empiricism are two influential philosophical theories in the area of epistemology. They offer different perspectives on how we can acquire knowledge, with each approach having its own advantages and disadvantages. Rationalism emphasizes the use of reason and deduction to arrive at certain truths, while empiricism relies on observation and experience to understand the world.

Ultimately, both theories have shaped our understanding of knowledge and have had a profound impact on how we approach the acquisition of new information.

Top Articles

• A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy

• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism

• Exploring Immanuel Kant's Aesthetic Theory

• Exploring the Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism
• Exploring the Theory of Forms: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Moral Relativism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophy
• Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
• Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
• Existentialism: An Introduction
• Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
• Materialism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Virtue Ethics: What it is and How it Works
• Understanding Inference: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Language: Exploring the Ways We Communicate
• Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors
• Exploring Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring the Philosophy of Beauty
• Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
• Lateral Thinking: An Overview
• Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
• Exploring the Principles of Virtue Ethics
• Thought Experiments: Exploring Creative and Philosophical Thinking
• Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective
• Exploring Hellenistic Philosophy: An Introduction
• A Comprehensive Look at Causality
• Exploring the Ontological Argument
• Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
• Altruism: Exploring the Power of Selflessness
• Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
• Exploring Plato's Theory of Forms
• Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
• Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
• Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
• A Comprehensive Overview of Foucault's The Order of Things
• Socrates: An In-Depth Exploration of the Ancient Philosopher
• Descartes' Meditations: An Introduction for None
• Exploring Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Aristotle: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Exploring the Life and Legacy of Cicero: An Introduction
• Exploring Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Exploring Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Epicurus - An Introduction to His Philosophy
• Descartes: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophical School
• Exploring Humanism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Life and Works of David Hume
• Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
• The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
• German Idealism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
• Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview
• Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Exploring British Empiricism

• Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Nature of Art
• Understanding Normative Ethics
• Exploring Beliefs and Truth: A Philosophical Guide
• Exploring Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring Cosmology: What We Know and What We Don't

Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals

• Exploring Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Film: Exploring Aesthetics and Types of Philosophy
• Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
• Exploring the Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Materialism and Physicalism: Exploring the Philosophical Concepts
• Exploring Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Exploring Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
• Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Exploring the Interplay between Religious Experience and Faith
• Exploring the Concepts of Cause, Necessity, Possibility, and Impossibility
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Perception and Knowledge Claims: Understanding Epistemological Terms
• Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
• Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
• Exploring Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism, and Hedonism
• Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
• Understanding Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
• Exploring Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring 'The Summa Theologiae' by Thomas Aquinas

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Rationalist and Empiricists – Continued

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 86925

In this section, we meet a noted empiricist who casts doubt on the very possibility of acquiring knowledge of the world. This new wrinkle in empiricist speculation inspires a creative rebuttal based on the interactive roles of experience and reason.

2.3.1 Hume: Empiricism and Doubt

David Hume (1711-1776)  was a Scottish philosopher whose work was not overwhelmingly well received in his lifetime but had major impact later on empiricism and on philosophy of science. His 1748 work  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding  provided a more accessible account of his empiricism as originally published.

Note:  Portions of the following material on Hume are adapted from information in The Philosophy Pages by  Garth Kemerling  and which is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0

Hume’s position is that since human beings do in fact live and function in the world, we should try to observe how they do so. The key principle to be applied to any investigation of our cognitive capacities is an attempt to discover the causes of human belief. This attempt is neither the popular project of noticing and cataloging human beliefs nor the metaphysical effort to provide them with an infallible rational justification. According to Hume, the proper goal of philosophy is simply to explain why we believe what we do.

Hume’s analysis of human belief begins with a careful distinction between certain mental contents:

• Impressions are the direct, vivid, and forceful products of immediate experience.
• Ideas are merely feeble copies of these original impressions.

From Section II of  An   Enquiry :

Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: but, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable. All the colours of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landscape. The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.

We may observe a like distinction to run through all the other perceptions of the mind. A man in a fit of anger, is actuated in a very different manner from one who only thinks of that emotion. If you tell me, that any person is in love, I easily understand your meaning, and form a just conception of his situation; but never can mistake that conception for the real disorders and agitations of the passion. When we reflect on our past sentiments and affections, our thought is a faithful mirror, and copies its objects truly; but the colours which it employs are faint and dull, in comparison of those in which our original perceptions were clothed. It requires no nice discernment or metaphysical head to mark the distinction between them.

Here therefore we may divide all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species, which are distinguished by their different degrees of force and vivacity. The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated Thoughts or Ideas. The other species want a name in our language, and in most others; I suppose, because it was not requisite for any, but philosophical purposes, to rank them under a general term or appellation. Let us, therefore, use a little freedom, and call them Impressions; employing that word in a sense somewhat different from the usual. By the term impression, then, I mean all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will. And impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are the less lively perceptions, of which we are conscious, when we reflect on any of those sensations or movements above mentioned.

The background color of the screen at which you are now looking is an impression, while your memory of the color of your first dog (if you’ve had dogs) is merely an idea. Since every idea must be derived from an antecedent impression, Hume supposed, it always makes sense to inquire into the origins of our ideas by asking from which impressions they are derived.

Add to this that each of our ideas and impressions is entirely separable from every other, in Hume’s view. The apparent connection of one idea to another is invariably the result of an association that we manufacture ourselves.

From Section III of  Enquiry:

Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different ideas are connected together; I do not find that any philosopher has attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect.

That these principles serve to connect ideas will not, I believe, be much doubted. A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the original: the mention of one apartment in a building naturally introduces an enquiry or discourse concerning the others: and if we think of a wound, we can scarcely forbear reflecting on the pain which follows it. But that this enumeration is complete, and that there are no other principles of association except these, may be difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the reader, or even to a man’s own satisfaction. All we can do, in such cases, is to run over several instances, and examine carefully the principle which binds the different thoughts to each other, never stopping till we render the principle as general as possible. The more instances we examine, and the more care we employ, the more assurance shall we acquire, that the enumeration, which we form from the whole, is complete and entire.

Experience provides us with both the ideas themselves and our awareness of their association. All human beliefs (including those we regard as cases of knowledge) result from repeated applications of these simple associations.

In Section IV of  Enquiry , Hume further distinguished between two sorts of belief:

• Relations of ideas  are beliefs grounded wholly on associations formed within the mind; they are capable of demonstration because they have no external referent.
• Matters of fact  are beliefs that claim to report the nature of existing things; they are always contingent.

These distinctions are Hume’s version of the  a priori  versus  a posteriori  distinction. Mathematical and logical knowledge relies upon relations of ideas; it is uncontroversial but uninformative with respect to knowledge the world. The interesting but problematic propositions of natural science depend upon matters of fact. Abstract metaphysics mistakenly (and fruitlessly) tries to achieve the certainty of the former with the content of the latter.

Matters of Fact and Skepticism

Since genuine information rests upon our belief in matters of fact, Hume was particularly concerned to explain their origin. Such beliefs can reach beyond the content of present sense-impressions and memory, Hume held, only by appealing to presumed connections of cause and effect. But since each idea is distinct and separable from every other, there is no self-evident relation; these connections can only be derived from our experience of similar cases. So the crucial question in epistemology is to ask exactly how it is possible for us to learn from experience.

From  Enquiry , Section IV, Part 1:

All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. If you were to ask a man, why he believes any matter of fact, which is absent; for instance, that his friend is in the country, or in France; he would give you a reason; and this reason would be some other fact; as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men in that island. All our reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. And here it is constantly supposed that there is a connexion between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious. The hearing of an articulate voice and rational discourse in the dark assures us of the presence of some person: Why? because these are the effects of the human make and fabric, and closely connected with it. If we anatomize all the other reasonings of this nature, we shall find that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that this relation is either near or remote, direct or collateral. Heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and the one effect may justly be inferred from the other.

If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence, which assures us of matters of fact, we must enquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect.

I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other. Let an object be presented to a man of ever so strong natural reason and abilities; if that object be entirely new to him, he will not be able, by the most accurate examination of its sensible qualities, to discover any of its causes or effects. Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him. No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.

This proposition, that causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience, will readily be admitted with regard to such objects, as we remember to have once been altogether unknown to us; since we must be conscious of the utter inability, which we then lay under, of foretelling what would arise from them. Present two smooth pieces of marble to a man who has no tincture of natural philosophy; he will never discover that they will adhere together in such a manner as to require great force to separate them in a direct line, while they make so small a resistance to a lateral pressure. Such events, as bear little analogy to the common course of nature, are also readily confessed to be known only by experience; nor does any man imagine that the explosion of gunpowder, or the attraction of a loadstone, could ever be discovered by arguments a priori. In like manner, when an effect is supposed to depend upon an intricate machinery or secret structure of parts, we make no difficulty in attributing all our knowledge of it to experience. Who will assert that he can give the ultimate reason, why milk or bread is proper nourishment for a man, not for a lion or a tiger?

Here, Hume supposed, the most obvious point is a negative one: causal reasoning can never be justified rationally. In order to learn, we must suppose that our past experiences bear some relevance to present and future cases. But although we do indeed believe that the future will be like the past, the truth of that belief is not self-evident. In fact, it is always possible for nature to change, so inferences from past to future are never rationally certain. Thus, in Hume’s view, the principle of induction cannot lead to meaningful conclusions about the world, and all beliefs in matters of fact are fundamentally non-rational.

…we always presume, when we see like sensible qualities, that they have like secret powers, and expect that effects, similar to those which we have experienced, will follow from them. If a body of like colour and consistence with that bread, which we have formerly eat, be presented to us, we make no scruple of repeating the experiment, and foresee, with certainty, like nourishment and support. Now this is a process of the mind or thought, of which I would willingly know the foundation. It is allowed on all hands that there is no known connexion between the sensible qualities and the secret powers; and consequently, that the mind is not led to form such a conclusion concerning their constant and regular conjunction, by anything which it knows of their nature. As to past Experience, it can be allowed to give direct and certain information of those precise objects only, and that precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance: but why this experience should be extended to future times, and to other objects, which for aught we know, may be only in appearance similar; this is the main question on which I would insist. The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities was, at that time, endued with such secret powers: but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary. At least, it must be acknowledged that there is here a consequence drawn by the mind; that there is a certain step taken; a process of thought, and an inference, which wants to be explained. These two propositions are far from being the same. I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will be attended with similar effects. I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may justly be inferred from the other: I know, in fact, that it always is inferred. But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The connexion between these propositions is not intuitive. There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact.

Consider Hume’s favorite example: our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Clearly, this is a matter of fact; it rests on our conviction that each sunrise is an effect caused by the rotation of the earth. But our belief in that causal relation is based on past observations, and our confidence that it will continue tomorrow cannot be justified inductively by reference to the past. So we have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet we do believe it!

Mitigated Skepticism

Where does this leave us? Hume believed he was carrying out the empiricist program with rigorous consistency. Locke honestly proposed the possibility of deriving knowledge from experience, but did not carry it far enough. Hume demonstrates that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism.

According to Hume, knowledge of pure mathematics is secure because it rests only on the relations of ideas, without presuming anything about the world. Experimental observations (conducted without any assumption of the existence of material objects) permit us to use our experience in forming useful habits. Any other epistemological effort, especially if it involves the pretense of achieving useful abstract knowledge, is meaningless and unreliable.

The most reasonable position, Hume held, is a “mitigated” skepticism that humbly accepts the limitations of human knowledge while pursuing the legitimate aims of math and science. In our non-philosophical moments, of course, we will be thrown back upon the natural beliefs of everyday life, no matter how lacking in rational justification we know they are.

Hume Summary

David Hume was an empiricist who doubted the principle of cause and effect, the principle of induction, and the possibility of actually knowing an external world. According to Hume, “…every effect is a distinct event from its cause.”

• We cannot know  a priori  that such a connection exists between any two events, because, if we were witnessing a supposed causal connection for the first time, simply using reason could not lead us to know that we were seeing cause and effect. We might have witnessed a random occurrence or correlation.
• We cannot know  a posteriori  that there is a causal connection between any two events, because there is nothing in our direct observation of events that denotes that one is a cause and the other an effect.

Hume maintained that inferences from past to future are never rationally certain, and thus, the principle of induction cannot lead to meaningful conclusions about the world. Neither  a priori  activity of the mind (ideas and the relations of ideas that we come to believe) nor  a posteriori  experience (impressions and the matters-of-fact that we come to believe) can suggest or validate the existence of the external world.

Supplemental resources are available (bottom of page) on Hume’s skepticism.

Briefly explain Hume’s skepticism. Do you think he makes a good argument for his position of doubt? (100 – 150 words)

Note:  Submit your response to the appropriate Assignments folder.

2.3.2 Kant: A Reasoned Response to Skepticism

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) , an innovative philosopher born in East Prussia (now Germany), appeared on the scene at a time of disarray in the world of Western epistemological thought. Rationalists and empiricists were at serious odds with each other. Pure rationalism did not offer experience a valued place in acquisition of true knowledge. The possibility of acquiring certain knowledge through experience, as we have just seen in our material on David Hume, was in a crisis of skepticism and doubt.

As mentioned previously, asking epistemological questions can entail additional questions about metaphysics; a theory that explains how we acquire knowledge is deeply intertwined with a theory on what is actually “out there” to be known. Kant creates a complex but compelling theory of knowledge known as  Transcendental Idealism , which describes truths about the world as both necessary and universal. Kant first published his vast masterwork of epistemology, the  Critique of Pure Reason  in 1781 and revised it in 1787. Between editions of the  Critique , in 1783 he published the  Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic , in which he presented topics from the  Critique in a manner that serves as an introduction to it. The  Critique  is   regarded by some, (even by Kant!) as intricate and perplexing. Our examination here of Kant and Transcendental Idealism will refer to both works.

Note:  Portions of the following material on Kant are adapted from information in  T he Philosophy Pages by  Garth Kemerling  and is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0

Kant’s aim was to move beyond the traditional dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism:

• The rationalists had tried to show that we can understand the world by careful use of reason. This guarantees undoubtable knowledge but leaves serious questions about its practical content.
• The empiricists had argued that all of our knowledge must be firmly grounded in experience. Practical content is thus secured, but it turns out that we can be certain of very little.

Kant surmised that both approaches failed because they are premised on similar mistaken assumptions.

Progress in philosophy, according to Kant, requires that we frame the epistemological problem differently:

• The crucial question is how the world comes to be understood by us, not how we can bring ourselves to understand the world.
• We must allow the structure of our concepts to shape our experience of objects, instead of trying, by reason or experience, to make our concepts match the nature of objects.
• We must see our minds as actively interacting with the products of experience, not as passive receivers of perceptions.

The purpose of Kant’s  Critique of Pure Reason  is to show how reason determines the conditions under which experience and knowledge are possible. The  Critique’ s Introduction: begins as follows:

I. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge

That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it.

But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skillful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight, whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.

In the  Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic  (1783) Kant presented the central themes of the first  Critique  in a slightly different manner, starting from instances in which it appears we have achieved knowledge, and then asking: under what conditions does each case become possible? He began by carefully drawing a pair of crucial distinctions among the judgments we actually make:

The first distinction separates  a priori  from  a posteriori  judgments by reference to the origin of our knowledge of them.

• A priori  judgments are based upon reason alone, independently of all sensory experience, and therefore apply with strict universality.
• A posteriori  judgments must be grounded upon experience and are consequently limited and uncertain in the the scope of their applicability.

This distinction marks the difference between necessary and contingent truths.

Second is the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, according to the information conveyed as their content.

• Analytic judgments are those whose predicates are wholly contained in their subjects. Such judgments simply explicate the subject, making it plain and clear but adding nothing to its concept.
• Synthetic judgments are those whose predicates are wholly distinct from their subjects. Such a judgment adds a connection external to the subject’s concept. Synthetic judgments are genuinely informative but require justification by reference to some outside principle.

Kant supposed that previous philosophers had failed to differentiate properly among the possible options available, given these two sets of distinctions. Both Leibniz and Hume had made a single distinction, between:

• matters-of-fact based on sensory experience, and
• the uninformative necessary truths of pure reason.

Kant thought these inadequate and limiting. All four of the logically possible combinations should be considered:

• Analytic  a posteriori  judgments cannot arise, since there is never any need to appeal to experience in support of an assertion that simply makes its subject plain and clear.
• Synthetic  a posteriori  judgments are the relatively uncontroversial matters of fact we come to know by means of our sensory experience.
• Analytic  a priori judgments , everyone agrees, include all merely logical truths and straightforward matters of definition; they are necessarily true.
• Synthetic  a priori  judgments are the crucial case, since only they could provide new information that is necessarily true. Neither Leibniz nor Hume considered the possibility of any such case.

Unlike his predecessors, Kant maintained that synthetic  a priori  judgments not only are possible but actually provide the basis for significant portions of human knowledge. In fact, he supposed that arithmetic and geometry comprise such judgments and that natural science depends on them for its power to explain and predict events.

Mathematics

Consider, for example, our knowledge that two plus three equals five or that the interior angles of any triangle add up to a straight line (180 degrees).

• Kant held that these (and other similar) truths of mathematics and geometry are synthetic judgments, since they significantly contribute (add) to our knowledge of the world. The sum of the interior angles is not contained in the concept of a triangle.
• Yet, clearly, such truths are known  a priori , since they apply with strict and universal necessity to all of the objects of our experience, without having been derived from that experience itself.

In these instances, Kant supposed, no one will ask whether or not we have synthetic  a priori  knowledge; plainly, we do. The question is, how do we come to have such knowledge? If experience does not supply the required connection between the concepts involved, what does?

Kant’s answer is that we do it ourselves!

Conformity with the truths of mathematics is a precondition that we impose upon every possible object of our experience. In order to be perceived by us, any object must be regarded as being uniquely located in space and time, so it is the temporal-spatial framework itself that provides the missing connection between the concept of the triangle and that of the sum of its angles.

Space and time, Kant argued, are the “pure forms of sensible intuition” under which we perceive what we do.

Understanding mathematics in this way makes it possible to rise above an old controversy between rationalists and empiricists regarding the very nature of space and time.

• Leibniz had maintained that space and time are not intrinsic features of the world itself, but merely a product of our minds.
• Newton, on the other hand, had insisted that space and time are absolute, not merely a set of spatial and temporal relations.

Kant now declares that both of them were correct! Space and time are absolute, and they do derive from our minds. As synthetic  a priori  judgments, the truths of mathematics are both informative and necessary.

This is a transcendental deduction, Kant’s method of reasoning that  a priori  concepts apply correctly/logically to knowledge of the particular. But there is a price to be paid for the certainty we achieve in this manner. Since mathematics derives from our own sensible intuition, we can be absolutely sure that it must apply to everything we perceive. But for the same reason, that it applies from our own sensible intuition, we can have no assurance that it has anything to do with the way things are apart from our own perception of them.

Note:  Kant’s use of the term “intuition” refers to a bit of sensory awareness, including any called up by the memory.

Natural Science

No less than in mathematics, in natural science Kant held that synthetic  a priori judgments provide the necessary foundations for human knowledge. The most general laws of nature, like the truths of mathematics, cannot be justified by experience, yet must apply to it universally.

• Hume’s conclusive demonstration — matters-of-fact rest upon an unjustifiable belief about necessary connection between causes and their effects — seems correct.
• But Kant’s more constructive approach is to offer a transcendental argument from the fact that we do have knowledge of the natural world to the truth of synthetic  a priori  propositions about the structure of our experience of it.

As we saw with mathematics, applying the concepts of space and time as forms of sensible intuition is a necessary condition for any perception. But the possibility of scientific knowledge requires that our experience of the world be not only perceivable but thinkable as well, and Kant held that the general intelligibility of experience entails the satisfaction of two further conditions:

• First, it must be possible in principle to arrange and organize the chaos of our many individual sensory images by tracing the connections that hold among them. Kant called this the “synthetic unity of the sensory manifold.”
• Second, it must be possible in principle for a single subject to perform this organization by discovering the connections among perceived images. This is satisfied by what Kant called the “transcendental unity of apperception.”

Experiential knowledge is thinkable only if there is some regularity in what is known and there is some knower in whom that regularity can be represented. Since we do actually have knowledge of the world as we experience it, Kant held, both of these conditions are the case.

Deduction of the Categories

Since individual images are perfectly separable as they occur within the sensory manifold, connections between them can be drawn only by the knowing subject in which the principles of connection are to be found. As in mathematics, so in science, the synthetic  a priori  judgments must derive from the structure of the understanding itself.

Consider the sorts of judgments distinguished by logicians (in Kant’s day). Each of these judgments has:

• a quantity: universal, particular, singular
• a quality: affirmative, negative, or infinite
• a relation: categorical, hypothetical, or disjunctive
• a modality: possible, actual, or necessary

Kant supposed that any intelligible thought can be expressed in judgments such as these. It follows that any thinkable experience must be understood in these ways, and that we are justified in projecting this entire way of thinking outside ourselves, as the inevitable structure of any possible experience.

The result of Kant’s “transcendental logic” is his schematized table of Transcendental Concepts of the Understanding. These are the concepts, or categories, of understanding used when thinking about the world. Each category is the subject of a separate section of the  Critique.

Our most fundamental convictions about the natural world derive from these concepts, according to Kant. The most general principles of natural science are not empirical generalizations from what we have experienced. Rather they are synthetic  a priori  judgments about what we could experience, judgments in which these concepts provide the crucial connectives.

Kant Summary

Kant believed that the external world exists and that gaining knowledge of it is possible using both information from the senses and rational abilities. He reasoned that our minds actively interact with the products of experience, instead of passively receiving perceptions. The structure of our concepts shapes our experience of objects; we make sense of the perceptions that bombard us. We come to know principles such as cause and effect and induction by making the connections between relevant concepts of our understanding and our experiences of the world, for example, that a particular effect follows a particular causative event by necessity. Such truths are both necessary and universal; they are synthetic  a priori  judgments that provide new information about the world.

Kant’s  transcendental idealism  maintains that synthetic  a priori  judgments are possible and provide the basis for significant portions of human knowledge by connecting categories (concepts) of our understanding to our experiences. Kant is not a traditional empiricist because he rejects the notion of the mind as a blank slate, until inscribed by experience, nor is Kant a traditional rationalist, because he does not accept the possibility of  a priori  ideas that are independent of experience of the world.

Explain how an active-versus-passive role of the human mind contributes to Kant’s position that the external world is knowable? (100 – 200 words)

Complete the Unit Test by the date on the Schedule of Work.

Supplemental Resources

These short videos on Hume’s skepticism review material provided in the content. [The second video may a queue up automatically when the first is complete.] •  PHILOSOPHY: Epistemology: Hume’s Skepticism and Induction, Part 1 •  PHILOSOPHY: Epistemology: Hume’s Skepticism and Induction, Part 2

• 2.3 Rationalist and Empiricists - Continued. Authored by : Kathy Eldred. Provided by : Pima Community College. License : CC BY: Attribution
• David Hume (1711-1776). Authored by : Garth Kemerling . Provided by : Philosophy Pages. Located at : http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/hume.htm . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 (page 30) p. 30 Rationalism and empiricism

• Published: September 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

‘Rationalism and empiricism’ considers the different ways of thinking about nature that emerged in the Early Modern period, illustrated by René Descartes' rationalism and John Locke's empiricism. How did they come to produce such different theories of knowledge? In the Meditations , Descartes takes a first-person approach: his guiding question is ‘What can I know for certain?’. Locke adopts a third-person approach, drawing on his observations of others alongside himself. The question Locke aims to answer is ‘What do human beings know?’. In modern terminology, the choice between taking a first-person or a third-person approach is the choice between ‘internalism’ and ‘externalism’.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Home » Education » Difference Between Rationalism and Empiricism

Difference Between Rationalism and Empiricism

Main difference – rationalism vs  empiricism.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It studies the nature of knowledge, the rationality of belief, and justification. Rationalism and empiricism are two schools of thought in epistemology. Both these schools of thought are concerned with the source of knowledge and justification. The main difference between rationalism and empiricism is that rationalism considers reason as the source of knowledge whereas empiricism considers experience as the source of knowledge.

This article covers,

1. What is Rationalism? – Definition and Characteristics

2. What is Empiricism?  – Definition and Characteristics

What is Empiricism

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. This theory emphasizes the role of the five senses in obtaining knowledge. Empiricism rejects innate concepts or inborn knowledge. John Locke, one of the most famous empiricist stated that mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) when we enter the world. According to this theory, it is only later, through the acquisition of experience that we gain knowledge and information.

However, if knowledge comes only through experience, it is impossible for us to talk about something that we have not experienced. This claim questions the validity of religious and ethical concepts; since these concepts cannot be observed or experienced, they were considered to be meaningless. Nevertheless, moderate empiricists accept that there are some phenomenon that cannot be explained through senses.

John Lock was an eminent empiricist.

What is Rationalism

Rationalism is a theory that states knowledge comes through reason, i.e., reason is the source of knowledge and justification. There are three basic claims in rationalism and rationalists must adopt at least one of these three claims. These claims are known as the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, or the innate concept thesis.

Innate knowledge – Rationalists argue that we are not born with minds like blind slates, but we have some innate knowledge.  That is, even before we experience the world we know some things.

Intuition/deduction – Rationalists can also argue that there are some truths that can be worked out independent of experience of the world, though not known innately. Examples of such truths include logic, mathematics, or ethical truths.

Innate concept – Some philosophers argue that innate knowledge and innate concept are the same whereas some other philosophers are of the view that they are different. Innate concept these people claim as that some concepts are a part of our rational nature and are not based on our experience. The way two children view the same object as ugly and beautiful can be an example of innate concepts.

Although these two theories, rationalism and empiricism, are often contrasted with each other, both reason and experience can be sources of knowledge. Language acquisition can be taken as an example of this. Although experience is needed to perfect a language, a certain amount of, intuition, deduction, and innate knowledge are also required to acquire a language.

Immanuel Kant was a noted rationalist.

Definition 

Rationalism: Rationalism is a theory based on the claim that reason is the source of knowledge.

Empiricism: Empiricism is a theory based on the claim that experience is the source of knowledge.

Rationalism: Rationalists believe in intuition.

Empiricism: Empiricists do not believe in intuition.

Rationalism: Rationalists believe that individuals have innate knowledge or concepts.

Empiricism: Empiricists believe that individuals have no innate knowledge.

Rationalism: Immanuel Kant, Plato, Rene Descartes, and Aristotle are some examples of prominent rationalists.

Empiricism: John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and George Berkeley are some examples of prominent empiricists.

Image Courtesy:

“Immanuel Kant (painted portrait)”  By Anonymous – (Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia

“JohnLock”By Sir Godfrey Kneller – State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia.( Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The Minds of the Moderns: Rationalism, Empiricism, and Philosophy of Mind

Janice Thomas, The Minds of the Moderns: Rationalism, Empiricism, and Philosophy of Mind , Acumen, 2009, 293pp., $27.95 (pbk), ISBN 9780773536388.

Reviewed by Stephen Puryear, North Carolina State University

In this work Thomas surveys the contributions of (pre-Kantian) early modern philosophy to our understanding of the mind. She focuses on the six canonical figures of the period — Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Hume — and asks what each has to say about five topics within the philosophy of mind. The topics are (1) the ontological status of mind, (2) the scope and nature of self-knowledge, (3) the nature of consciousness, (4) the problem of mental causation, and (5) the nature of representation or intentionality. The overarching aim of the book is to show that the theories articulated by these thinkers are not just historical curiosities, but have much to contribute to our understanding of these topics today.

In the chapters devoted to the ontological status of mind, Thomas aims “to trace the impact of the early modern period’s growing scepticism about substance on its evolving theories about the nature of mind” (4). Assuming there was such a growing skepticism, we might expect to find a definite shift during this period away from the view that minds are substances — indeed, immaterial substances — and toward the view that they are not substances at all. However, this is not what Thomas finds. On her view Locke is officially agnostic about whether the mind is a substance (though she muddies the water by claiming that for Locke “a person, mind or self is not a substance at all”, but rather “something that may be produced by, and certainly is supported and unified by, immaterial substance” 146 ). Further, Hume denies outright that the mind is a substance, since he considers it only a bundle of perceptions. But Berkeley, she says, agrees with Descartes and Leibniz that the mind is an immaterial substance, and Spinoza maintains that the human mind is not a substance but merely an idea in the mind of God. Hence, there is no straightforward progression from those who consider the mind to be a substance to those who don’t. The growing skepticism about substance, Thomas concludes, seems to have had no straightforward impact on early modern theories of mind.

In the chapters devoted to the nature of consciousness, Thomas contends that Spinoza, Locke, and Hume offer few insights. Indeed she roundly criticizes Spinoza and Locke for deficiencies in their views. One problem with Spinoza’s theory, she says, is that he seems committed to denying that human minds are conscious subjects. For if God is the only substance, it’s hard to see how he could fail to be the only conscious subject (81-82). Moreover, she adds, if the divine mind is just a bundle of ideas, as Spinoza appears to hold, it’s hard to see how even God could be a conscious subject ( Ibid .). Thomas objects to Locke’s view on the ground that his account of memory conflicts with his belief that we are always conscious of all our ideas (156-59).

On the positive side, Thomas sees Descartes and Leibniz as proposing accounts of the nature of consciousness — accounts that may be viewed as precursors of the sort of higher-order thought approaches that some advocate today. She also argues that many early modern philosophers recognize, even if only tacitly, different kinds of consciousness. For instance, on her reading Descartes, Leibniz, and Hume all distinguish at least implicitly between what contemporary philosophers would call “perceptual consciousness”, “access consciousness”, and “phenomenal consciousness”; and Descartes further distinguishes between “organism consciousness” and “introspective consciousness”. Thomas appears to be rather impressed by this point; however, I believe it rests on a faulty inference. In each case she starts with the banal observation that a philosopher recognizes consciousness of different kinds of things, and from this infers the substantive conclusion that he believes in different kinds of consciousness. This is clearly a non-sequitur. Consciousness of different kinds of things does not imply different kinds of consciousness, and in the absence of any explicit evidence that these philosophers drew such distinctions, we should not be so quick to suppose that they did.

One of the more familiar problems for early modern theories of mind concerns mental causation. It is well known that Descartes thinks the mind, an immaterial substance, can interact with the body, a material substance. Yet it’s notoriously difficult to see how such radically different types of substance could influence one another. Descartes hardly addresses this problem himself, but according to Thomas his best response would be to note that though we cannot understand in detail how such interaction works, theistic philosophers, at least, should not doubt that it is possible, since it is of a piece with the influence God exerts on matter when he sets it in motion. Locke, Thomas tells us, finds himself in a similar situation. He too claims that minds and bodies interact, but he offers even less than Descartes in the way of an explanation of how such interaction works.

Berkeley and Hume agree that minds and bodies interact, but for them this interaction is considerably less enigmatic. In Berkeley’s case, bodies are really just bundles of ideas. For him, then, mind-body interaction amounts to nothing more than an unproblematic interaction between a mind and its ideas. In Hume’s case, minds and bodies truly influence one another, but this influence is nothing more than constant conjunction; there’s no reason why the changes in two entities can’t be constantly conjoined, even if those entities have radically different natures. So for Hume mind-body interaction is no more or less troubling than body-body interaction, which nearly everyone considers legitimate.

In contrast to their fellow early modern philosophers, both Spinoza and Leibniz hold that in an important sense minds and bodies don’t truly interact. On Spinoza’s view, they do not interact because they are identical, it being impossible for something to interact with itself. Leibniz would agree with the critics who assert that since mind and body have such different natures, they cannot interact in any ordinary sense. He would add, however, that they appear to interact only because their changes are always coordinated, God having created them with precisely those natures that would guarantee their perpetual harmony with one another. Thomas takes note of Leibniz’s suggestion that minds and bodies interact “ideally”, insofar as they move God to accommodate the others to them in order to bring them into harmony. But she dismisses this suggestion because she thinks it would deprive God of the title of first cause, and because it would require backward causation, which is impossible. It would have been helpful at this point in the book to hear more about the views of Malebranche, but, alas, Thomas hardly mentions him at all, and she discusses occasionalism only briefly and in passing (see 128, 220-21).

The intentionality of a representation — its quality of representing or being about some object — is said to be derived if (and only if) it is parasitic on the intentionality of something else; otherwise it is said to be original . Thus, if I wanted to depict, say, the order in which the early modern philosophers were born, I might do so by arranging six arbitrarily-chosen objects on my desk and stipulating that the leftmost one represents Descartes, the next Spinoza, and so forth. In that case, the intentionality acquired by these objects would be derived, since they do not represent these philosophers in and of themselves but only insofar as I — a being whose thoughts represent these objects — confer that intentionality upon them. According to many philosophers, however, the intentionality of my thoughts is not like this: their representational contents are intrinsic to them, and so their intentionality is not derived but original.

In the chapters on representation, Thomas argues that of all the philosophers under consideration, only Hume would agree with those philosophers who hold that our ideas or thoughts have original intentionality. On his view, she argues, our ideas represent their objects mostly in virtue of being caused by, and to a lesser degree in virtue of resembling, those objects. Their intentionality is therefore not simply derived from the intentionality of other representations. The others, she holds, all agree that our ideas derive their intentionality ultimately from God (and, presumably, from the intentionality of God’s ideas). Most of them believe that God confers intentionality upon our ideas by, in effect, decreeing that a given idea represent a certain object, in much the same way that I confer intentionality upon the objects on my desk through stipulation. Thus in the case of the innate ideas of Descartes and Leibniz, or the sensory ideas of Berkeley, God simply stipulates what their representational content will be, and then, as it were, plants them in our minds. When it comes to Cartesian sensory ideas, or Lockean ideas in general, God bestows intentionality in less direct fashion, endowing us with physiological mechanisms specifically designed to produce the appropriate representations within us. Of course, Spinoza would not say that God does anything by decree, but on Thomas’ reading even he holds that our ideas in some way derive their representational character from the original intentionality of God.

These conclusions about intentionality appear to me to be wholly unfounded. As far as I can tell most of the philosophers under consideration have virtually nothing to say about how our ideas represent. Thomas obviously disagrees, but this is because she sees evidence of accounts of intentionality where there is none. In several places she reasons that because a philosopher believes that our ideas ultimately originate with God, the intentionality of these ideas must be derived: that is, they must represent their objects not in virtue of their intrinsic qualities, but only in virtue of having been selected by God to represent those objects. Thus, she has this to say about Descartes’ innate ideas: “These ideas are placed in their possessor by God and thus owe their ‘aboutness’ or intentionality to God. Despite appearances, these ideas thus have intentionality that is derived, rather than original” (53). But this is a mistake. Of course in one sense it’s quite true that on Descartes’ view these ideas owe their intentionality to God. As modifications of created substances, they owe their very being to God, and that which has no being cannot represent. Contrary to what Thomas suggests, however, this does not suffice to make their intentionality derived. Even if our ideas are created by God, it might be essential to them to represent the particular objects they represent, and in that case their intentionality would be original, not derived, even though in a sense they would owe their intentionality to God.

It seems a particularly egregious mistake to interpret Leibniz along these lines. Among other reasons, he repeatedly distances himself from those who would say that God arbitrarily imposes intentionality upon our ideas. As he writes in the New Essays on Human Understanding ,

We must not suppose that these ideas, such as those of color or pain, are arbitrary and without relation or natural connection with their causes: it is not God’s way to act with so little order and reason. I would say rather that there is a kind of resemblance, though not one that is entire and, so to speak, in terminus , but one that is expressive [i.e., representational] and involves a relation of order. 1

This passage and others like it suggest that on Leibniz’s view our ideas express or represent their objects in and of themselves, in virtue of a natural relation or resemblance which obtains between them, and not simply because God imposes these contents upon them. But this would make their intentionality original, not derived.

Thomas herself calls attention to passages in which Leibniz appears to indicate that representation (often?) involves a kind of structural correspondence or isomorphism between representation and thing represented (135). But she quickly rebuffs the suggestion that on Leibniz’s view our ideas or perceptions represent in this way. As she sees it, only things with parts or elements could be isomorphic to one another, and monads, as utterly simple substances, have neither (136). This, however, is too quick. Monads may have neither parts nor elements, but they do have modifications, and Leibniz quite clearly believes that these modifications can form structures, larger perceptions being composed in some way out of smaller ones. He is even prepared to speak of these smaller perceptions as “parts” of the larger ones. 2 Not only does Thomas ascribe to the early moderns accounts of intentionality for which there is scant evidence, then, but in at least one case she fails to ascribe to a philosopher an account that he clearly did propose.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10 2.2 Rationalist and Empiricists

In this section, we will meet several philosophers, some whose theories exemplify what it means to be a rationalist, and a notable one whose work exemplifies the empiricist’s position. We will get a sense of the conflicts that have prevailed between the proponents of these two theories on how we acquire knowledge of the world.

2.2.1 Plato: Roots of Rationalism

The precedence of the mind and reason over the material world of experience and impressions was a Western philosophical position well before the time of the”continental rationalists” we will examine in this section.  Plato (427-347 BCE)  was a rationalist. As you will see in the short upcoming videos, for Plato the world of experience held no primacy; what happens in the realm of the sensory and the experiential does not even qualify as “real” much less as a pathway to knowledge. Plato’s “forms” are seen as  innate ideas  in that the forms/ideas are inborn, within us to be discovered.

Plato’s Forms can be known only through the intellect, and they are the ultimate reality. The world we observe with our senses contains only imperfect copies.

Plato’s theory of Forms is described in the first two minutes of this video. Watch at least that much.  Plato’s Best (and Worst) Ideas .  [CC-BY-NC-ND] This video provides a quick look at Plato’s cave allegory, which also relates to his theory of Forms.  Plato’s Allegory of the Cave .  [CC-BY-NC-ND]

2.2.2 Descartes: Continental Rationalism

“Continental rationalism” refers to the work of philosophers on the European continent who, during the 17th and 18th centuries, took exception to the prevailing acceptance of sensory experience as the primary gateway to knowledge. Though some of these rationalists gave sensory experience a place in their theory of knowledge, they regarded reasoning as the only source of dependable knowledge.

Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Nicolas Malabranche are among the noted continental rationalists. We will look briefly at Rene Descartes’s rationalism, in particular the way in which distrust of sensory perceptions lead him to a position and theory that embraces innate ideas. Later we will meet Gottfried Leibniz.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)  is one of the prominent figures in modern philosophy. His work encompasses not only what we consider philosophical disciplines today, but also the mathematics and science of his times. Such topics were closely aligned with philosophy during his era. His work encompassed methods for seeking knowledge in all disciplines.

Descartes’ work,  Meditations on First Philosophy  (1641) details his progression through a first-person epistemological drama of realization, from doubt to certainty. He starts from scratch, emptying his mind of every preconception. In the  Meditations , we see his rationalist’s confidence in innate ideas.

Note:  We will meet Descartes and his  Meditations  again, in our Metaphysics module where we consider his strict mind-body dualism.

Descartes’ famous wax thought experiment of the  Second Meditation  describes (among other things) a procedure to “dig out” what is innate. The section of the  Second Meditation , imbedded below, also demonstrates Descartes’ doubt about impressions we gather from our senses; they are untrustworthy measures of the nature of physical bodies.

From the  Second Meditation: The nature of the human mind and how it is better known than the body.  Observe the dramatic first-person style of the  Meditations .

Let us now accordingly consider the objects that are commonly thought to be the most easily, and likewise the most distinctly known, viz., the bodies we touch and see; not, indeed, bodies in general, for these general notions are usually somewhat more confused, but one body in particular. Take, for example, this piece of wax; it is quite fresh, having been but recently taken from the beehive; it has not yet lost the sweetness of the honey it contained; it still retains somewhat of the odor of the flowers from which it was gathered; its color, figure, size, are apparent (to the sight); it is hard, cold, easily handled; and sounds when struck upon with the finger. In fine, all that contributes to make a body as distinctly known as possible, is found in the one before us. But, while I am speaking, let it be placed near the fire—what remained of the taste exhales, the smell evaporates, the color changes, its figure is destroyed, its size increases, it becomes liquid, it grows hot, it can hardly be handled, and, although struck upon, it emits no sound. Does the same wax still remain after this change? It must be admitted that it does remain; no one doubts it, or judges otherwise. What, then, was it I knew with so much distinctness in the piece of wax? Assuredly, it could be nothing of all that I observed by means of the senses, since all the things that fell under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing are changed, and yet the same wax remains. It was perhaps what I now think, viz., that this wax was neither the sweetness of honey, the pleasant odor of flowers, the whiteness, the figure, nor the sound, but only a body that a little before appeared to me conspicuous under these forms, and which is now perceived under others. But, to speak precisely, what is it that I imagine when I think of it in this way? Let it be attentively considered, and, retrenching all that does not belong to the wax, let us see what remains.

There certainly remains nothing, except something extended, flexible, and movable. But what is meant by flexible and movable? Is it not that I imagine that the piece of wax, being round, is capable of becoming square, or of passing from a square into a triangular figure? Assuredly such is not the case, because I conceive that it admits of an infinity of similar changes; and I am, moreover, unable to compass this infinity by imagination, and consequently this conception which I have of the wax is not the product of the faculty of imagination.  But what now is this extension? Is it not also unknown? for it becomes greater when the wax is melted, greater when it is boiled, and greater still when the heat increases; and I should not conceive clearly and according to truth, the wax as it is, if I did not suppose that the piece we are considering admitted even of a wider variety of extension than I ever imagined. I must, therefore, admit that I cannot even comprehend by imagination what the piece of wax is, and that it is the mind alone which perceives it. I speak of one piece in particular; for as to wax in general, this is still more evident. But what is the piece of wax that can be perceived only by the understanding or mind? It is certainly the same which I see, touch, imagine; and, in fine, it is the same which, from the beginning, I believed it to be. But (and this it is of moment to observe) the perception of it is neither an act of sight, of touch, nor of imagination, and never was either of these, though it might formerly seem so, but is simply an intuition (inspectio) of the mind, which may be imperfect and confused, as it formerly was, or very clear and distinct, as it is at present, according as the attention is more or less directed to the elements which it contains, and of which it is composed.

This brief passage demonstrates the inadequacy of both sensory impressions and imagination. Both the ideas we derive from sensory impressions and those we fabricate by imagination figure in Descartes’s distinctions among types of ideas. His argument for innate ideas involves his overall classification of ideas as being one of three types: adventitious (derived from the world outside us via sensation), factitious (created by the imagination), and innate (concepts that are clear and distinct truths.) Descartes’s argument that clear and distinct truths are innate is arrived at by eliminating the possibility for such ideas being either factitious (mentally fabricated) or adventitious (based on experience.) They are eternal truths.

Descartes Summary

A rationalist, in the Platonic tradition of innate ideas, Descartes believed that knowledge derives from ideas of the intellect, not from the senses. His argument for innate ideas involves his elimination of the possibility that clear and distinct ideas can be gained either through experience or imagination. Innate ideas have universal truth and are the only dependable source of knowledge. Clear and distinct in our minds, innate ideas are universal truths. The idea of a triangle with its requisite properties, for example, can be perceived clearly and distinctly within the mind, without reference to a particular object in the world.

Several supplementary reading resources (bottom of page) provide insight on innate ideas as an element of Descartes’ s rationalism.

Do you think that innate ideas are possible? Putting it another way, do you think that we have ideas or knowledge not based on experience? Provide your reasons/argument for your position.

Note:  Post your response in the appropriate Discussion topic

2.2.3 Locke: British Empiricism

“British empiricism” refers to a philosophical direction during the 17th and 18th centuries, primarily in the British Isles. This movement is characterized by its rejection of and response to tenets of rationalism such as innate ideas and knowledge based on anything  a priori . Francis Bacon, whose lifetime overlapped with that of Descartes, was an early figure in this movement. In the 18th century, John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume became the leading figures. We will examine John Locke’s statement of the empiricist’s position that experience is the only viable basis of knowledge.

John Locke (1632-1704)  produced a comprehensive and influential philosophical work with his  An Essay concerning Human Understanding  in 1690. This work sets out to provide a comprehensive account of the mind and how humans acquire knowledge. An important and primary part of his agenda is to dispute the foundations of the rationalist theory of knowledge, including the possibility that there could be innate ideas. Locke’s project with the  Essay , however, is a lot larger than an attack on nativism (innate ideas.) His intention is to thoroughly examine the process of understanding and acquisition of knowledge, to describe exactly how our minds work.

Locke describes two distinct types of experience: (1) outer experience is acquired through our five senses and involves objects that exist in the world; and (2) inner experience is derived from mental acts such as reflection. The latter are complicated. But all ideas, regardless of their complexity are constructed from combinations of simple ideas, the building blocks for everything we could possibly think. All ideas (and all knowledge) originate from experience. Our minds start off as blank slates.

Part of Locke’s argument against innate ideas is that they are not universal – not everyone has them. This excerpt from Book I, Chapter 1 of the  Essay  adds the additional important argument against the possibility of innate ideas, questioning the possibility of having ideas in your mind without knowing they are there.

5. Not on Mind naturally imprinted, because not known to Children, Idiots, etc.

For, first, it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them. And the want of that is enough to destroy that universal assent which must needs be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths: it seeming to me near a contradiction to say, that there are truths imprinted on the soul, which it perceives or understands not: imprinting, if it signify anything, being nothing else but the making certain truths to be perceived. For to imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s perceiving it, seems to me hardly intelligible. If therefore children and idiots have souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, THEY must unavoidably perceive them, and necessarily know and assent to these truths; which since they do not, it is evident that there are no such impressions. For if they are not notions naturally imprinted, how can they be innate? and if they are notions imprinted, how can they be unknown? To say a notion is imprinted on the mind, and yet at the same time to say, that the mind is ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it, is to make this impression nothing. No proposition can be said to be in the mind which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of…

Locke Summary

John Locke was an empiricist who believed that the mind is a blank slate ( tabula rasa ) when we are born; the mind contains no innate ideas. He thought that we gain all of our knowledge through our senses. Locke argued against rationalism by attacking the view that we could know something and yet be unaware that we know it. He thought it was contradictory to believe we possess knowledge of which we are unaware. He also maintained that innate ideas would be universal by definition and that there are people who could not have such ideas.

A supplementary reading resource (bottom of page) explores the overall project of Locke’s  Essay concerning Human Understanding.

2.2.4 Leibniz: A Rationalist Response to Empiricism

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)  was a continental rationalist, whose response to Locke’s attack on innate ideas, takes exception with Locke’s thesis that “nothing can be in the mind which is not in consciousness.” Leibniz’s reply to Locke is part of his 1704 work,  New Essays on Human Understanding .

Note:  Leibniz’s conception of the nature of consciousness is at odds with that of Locke. For Locke, consciousness and the soul are one and the same – immaterial and unobservable, unlike the experiential world. (This is a dualistic viewpoint put forward by Descartes and has been commonly held.) For Leibniz, consciousness is real in the same way the world is, but it is not “mechanical.” We will return to the topic of dualism in the module on Metaphysics.

Leibniz’s response to Locke is addressed here in a second-source work by American philosopher John Dewey (1859 – 1952). This excerpt is from the end of Chapter IV of Dewey’s book,  Leibniz’s New Essays Concerning the Human Understanding: A Critical Exposition , 1888:

He [Locke] founds his denial of innate ideas not only upon a static conception of their ready made existence”in” the soul, but also upon an equally mechanical conception of consciousness.”Nothing can be in the mind which is not in consciousness.” This statement appears axiomatic to Locke, and by it he would settle the whole discussion. Regarding it, Leibniz remarks that if Locke has such a prejudice as this, it is not surprising that he rejects innate ideas. But consciousness and mental activity are not thus identical. To go no farther, the mere empirical fact of memory is sufficient to show the falsity of such an idea. Memory reveals that we have an indefinite amount of knowledge of which we are not always conscious. Rather than that knowledge and consciousness are one, it is true that actual consciousness only lays hold of an infinitesimal fraction of knowledge. But Leibniz does not rely upon the fact of memory alone. We must constantly keep in mind that to Leibniz the soul is not a form of being wholly separate from nature, but is the culmination of the system of reality…….

….Leibniz not only denies the equivalence of soul and consciousness, but asserts that the fundamental error of the psychology of the Cartesians (and here, at least, Locke is a Cartesian) is in identifying them. He asserts that”unconscious ideas” are of as great importance in psychology as molecules are in physics. They are the link between unconscious nature and the conscious soul. Nothing happens all at once; nature never makes jumps; these facts stated in the law of continuity necessitate the existence of activities, which may be called ideas, since they belong to the soul and yet are not in consciousness.

When, therefore, Locke asks how an innate idea can exist and the soul not be conscious of it, the answer is at hand. The”innate idea” exists as an activity of the soul by which it represents—that is, expresses—some relation of the universe, although we have not yet become conscious of what is contained or enveloped in this activity. To become conscious of the innate idea is to lift it from the sphere of nature to the conscious life of spirit. And thus it is, again, that Leibniz can assert that all ideas whatever proceed from the depths of the soul.…… An innate idea is now seen to be one of the relations by which the soul reproduces some relation which constitutes the universe of reality, and at the same time realizes its own individual nature..…

Leibniz’s argument against Locke, as explained by Dewey, has psychological underpinnings; the mere concept of memory implies that we have ideas that are not conscious at a given moment. Leibniz conceived innate ideas as dispositions or tendencies that are necessary truths from which the mind thrives and flourishes.

Leibniz Summary

According to Leibniz, who was a rationalist, we do have innate ideas, which start as tendencies. Initially these innate ideas are unconscious ideas; they represent “some relation of the universe” and become fully formed (conscious) as we experience the world. Leibniz argued that sense experience only gives us examples, contingent truths, but never the necessary principles we attach to those examples.

A supplemental resource is available (bottom of page) on Leibniz conception of innate ideas.

This TED Talk speaker, psychologist Stephen Pinker, argues against the idea that the mind begins as a”blank slate.” Viewing it may be helpful in formulating your response to the  Coursework  question below.  Human Nature and the Blank Slate .  [CC-BY-NC-ND]

John Dewey tells us that Gottfried Leibniz, in defense of his theory of innate ideas, “asserts that ‘unconscious ideas’ are of as great importance in psychology as molecules are in physics.” And “To become conscious of the innate idea is to lift it from the sphere of nature to the conscious life of spirit.”

What do you think of this psychological perspective on innate ideas? Does it seem predictive of modern thinking about the mind, (for example Stephen Pinker)? (100-200 words)

Note:  Submit your response to the appropriate Assignments folder.

Supplemental Resources

This video emphasizes how Plato’s Theory of Forms is not just about acquiring knowledge (epistemology) but also about the nature of reality itself (metaphysics.)  PLATO ON: The Forms

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)  Descartes’ Epistemology  Read section 1.5. This brief section explains how Descartes’ conception of innate ideas resembles Platonic Forms. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)  Continental Rationalism  Read section 2.a. It is a very brief discussion of Descartes’ conception of innate ideas.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)  John Locke (1623-1704)  Read this article’s introduction and section 2, a, b, and c for a larger account of the project of Locke’s  Essay. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Innate Ideas  Read section 6.3 on innate ideas. You will notice that Leibniz theory of knowledge is closely interwoven with his theory on the nature of reality (his metaphysics).

Introduction to Philosophy Copyright © by Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Rationalism vs Empiricism: Difference and Comparison

Both the terms, Rationalism And Empiricism, are related to philosophy. Philosophy is the study of fundamental ideas about knowledge, reasoning, reality, and existence, a specific set of ideas.

Both the terms are used under philosophy and sound the same, but they have different meanings. Indeed, rationalism and empiricism are terms that are used as opposed. It’s an old controversy.

Key Takeaways Rationalism is the belief that knowledge can be gained through reason and intuition, while empiricism is the belief that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Rationalists believe that some knowledge is innate, while empiricists believe all knowledge is acquired through experience. Rationalism is associated with philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz, while empiricism is associated with philosophers like Locke and Hume.

Rationalism vs Empiricism

In philosophy, rationalism is knowledge acquired from the use of logic and reasoning. It involves using mental processes to help make sense of what is true. Empiricism is the knowledge acquired from personal experiences as gathered by the five senses of the sensory system. It involves experimentation to explain reality. 

Rationalism is the term used in philosophy to refer to the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic. It is a view which appeals to reason to be a source of any knowledge.

Any justification that is given with a reason or a logic that is intellectual is rationalism. Rationalists believe that everything has logic behind it, reality has logic, and logical knowledge is correct.

Empiricism, on the other hand, is the term in which the main source of knowledge is experience and experimentation.

Rather than just an innate idea, empiricists believe that there is a shred of empirical evidence behind every knowledge.

It is a philosophy of science that emphasizes evidence, evidence that is discovered through experiments.

Comparison Table

What is rationalism.

Rationalism is a theory of philosophy in which it is believed that reason and logic are the main sources of knowledge.

It is a methodology that says that justification or reason is the view that shows the basis of knowledge. Rationalism goes back in history to 570-495 BCE.

Rationalists believe that logic and reason can reveal the reality of the world and that some truths exist that can be grasped directly through the intellect.

Rationalism can be seen in logical reasoning, mathematics, morals and ethics, and metaphysics. Rationalists highly believe that the reason is fundamentally true, and they cannot be denied.

They believe that knowledge is independent of sensory experience.

There are three basic claims in rationalism. Out of these three claims, rationalists have to adopt at least one.

These three theses are the intuition or deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, and the innate concept thesis.

In addition to these, there are two more theses, although a person can be a rationalist without adopting either of them. One is the claim of the Indispensability of Reason, and the second one is the Superiority of Reason claim.

The philosopher and historian William James criticised the theory of rationalism because it is outdated and is not in touch with reality. He opposed that the rationalist represents the world as a closed system.

What is Empiricism?

Empiricism is the term used in philosophy, which states that experimentation and sensory experience is the major source of knowledge.

Rather than ideas, empiricism emphasized the pieces of evidence. Experiments and evidence show the reality of the world, according to empiricists.

Throughout history, the theory of empiricism is described as a blank slate that is filled with experience over time.

The human mind is like a blank slate, which is empty by birth and is filled in by experience, learning, and experiments.

Knowledge is based on the experience we gain, the possibilities and probabilities of our actions, the falsification, and the experimental procedure.

The word Empirical is derived from an ancient Greek word, “empeiria”, which means experience. The history of the belief in empiricism goes far back to 600 to 200 BCE.

An ancient Indian philosopher named Kanada accepted that the two sources of knowledge are perception and inference . This is mentioned in his work called Vaisesika Sutra, which is an ancient Sanskrit text.

Empiricists believe that experience and memory develop the person and his morals.

They also believe that evidence, any kind of proof that is found by experiment, can reveal the world’s reality rather than some reason and logic.

Main Differences Between Rationalism And Empiricism

• The main source of knowledge in rationalism is reason and logic. On the other hand, the source of knowledge in empiricism is experimentation.
• Rationalists believe that reason can explain the workings of the world, the reality. In contrast, empiricists believe that evidence through experimentation can explain reality.
• Mathematics is considered the paradigm of knowledge in rationalism. While in empiricism, experimental science is the paradigm or example of knowledge.
• Rationalism is related to mental processes and organizing principles. Empiricism is related to sensory experience and association principles.
• Rationalism is theory, while empiricism is an experiment.

• https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
• https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=szCaXDdhID8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=what+is+rationalism&ots=qaTeMdh7Lm&sig=fIT22jVywRfgAoxt2JOqA5xlCy0

Last Updated : 29 August, 2023

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Emma Smith holds an MA degree in English from Irvine Valley College. She has been a Journalist since 2002, writing articles on the English language, Sports, and Law. Read more about me on her bio page .

Share this post!

20 thoughts on “rationalism vs empiricism: difference and comparison”.

This philosophical debate between rationalism and empiricism is fascinating. It’s intriguing that both concepts are so similar and, at the same time, so different. I truly enjoyed reading this article.

I agree with you. I believe that our knowledge comes from a combination of both reason and experience.

This article was so informative! I never realized that rationalism and empiricism had such complex histories.

Yes, the history of these two philosophies is quite fascinating and definitely worth researching further.

I appreciate the detailed examination of the historical and conceptual foundations of rationalism and empiricism. This article offers a valuable perspective on these two influential philosophical traditions.

Definitely. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the rationalism-empiricism debate.

Absolutely. The contrast between rationalism and empiricism is portrayed very effectively in the article.

This article is a bit too biased towards rationalism. I disagree with the view that empiricism is not compatible with the reality of the world. Empirical evidence provides valuable insights.

I tend to agree with you. I think it’s important to recognize the contributions of both rationalism and empiricism in the pursuit of knowledge.

Interesting point. Both rationalism and empiricism can offer valuable perspectives on knowledge and understanding.

An enlightening discussion of two major philosophical traditions. The article does a great job of capturing the essence of rationalism and empiricism.

As someone interested in philosophy and the history of ideas, this article is a great introduction to the debate between rationalism and empiricism. It covers the key aspects of these two perspectives comprehensively.

I agree! The article lays out the key differences between rationalism and empiricism in a clear and insightful way.

Definitely. It’s intriguing to delve into the historical and conceptual foundations of these two influential philosophies.

The debate between rationalism and empiricism has been a fascinating one throughout the history of philosophy. I don’t think the discrepancies between the two can be resolved definitively, and that’s what makes the discussion so compelling.

Absolutely. The tension between these two philosophical perspectives has led to some remarkable discussions and insights.

Agreed. They seem to represent two fundamental ways of approaching the acquisition of knowledge.

The comparison table is quite helpful in illustrating the key differences between rationalism and empiricism. It makes it easier to grasp the distinctions between the two philosophical schools.

I agree. The table provides a handy reference for understanding the nuances of rationalism and empiricism.

Absolutely. I found the table to be a great summary of the main points made in the article.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!