Rationalism vs. Empiricism: Key Differences
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
Rationalism is characterized by two fundamental assertions:
- We can build our knowledge of reality from evident principles.
- These first principles are innate and obvious, without the need for sensory experience.
Empiricism holds that the origin and value of our knowledge depend on experience, so there are no innate ideas or principles.
Similarities Between Rationalism and Empiricism
- The concept is the core idea of the theory of knowledge.
- They try to explain the origin of knowledge.
- The fastest way to learn is intuition, but rationalists speak of intellectual intuition, and empiricists of sensory-perceptual intuition.
Differences Between Rationalism and Empiricism
- For empiricists, the subject is subordinate to and depends upon experience and the senses. For rationalists, it is the subject that establishes knowledge through reason.
- How to understand consciousness is another difference. Empiricists reveal a substanceless and passive role in knowledge. For rationalists, consciousness is a substance with innate content.
- For empiricism, thought depends on data that provides sensitivity. For rationalism, thought is autonomous and can judge validity.
Locke’s Critique of Nativism
John Locke argued against innate ideas or principles. In his first work, he attempted to show that there are no innate ideas or principles. Locke was critical of the idea that innate principles are naturally possessed and that, therefore, there are necessary and obvious truths when we understand the phenomena that are made.
Locke’s argument was that recognizing these truths does not imply that they are innate, and that if they were, our minds would be full of innate knowledge. Therefore, nativism is an unsubstantiated theory.
David Hume: Critique of the Idea of Cause
Knowledge of Facts
Our knowledge of facts is limited to current impressions and memories of past impressions, but there can be no knowledge of future events because we do not have any impression of what will happen.
Criticism of the Principle of Causality
The traditional principle of causality stated that, a priori, any cause produces an effect. Hume disagreed with this and criticized it.
The principle of causality is not obvious a priori. If you analyze something, we never find anything in it that can produce an effect. Nor can we say that whatever begins to exist has a cause, or that the same causes produce the same effects.
God: Locke and Berkeley had used the principle of causation to substantiate the claim that God exists. Hume said that this inference is unwarranted by reason because God is not subject to any impression.
The Self
We all have a conviction of our own identity, but that awareness, according to Hume, comes from past perceptions related to continuity and similarity. There is no perception of self, but other types of perceptions (e.g., what we hear) which are then associated with the imagination.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
Rationalism is characterized by two fundamental assertions:
- We can build our knowledge of reality from evident principles.
- These first principles are innate and obvious, without the need for sensory experience.
Empiricism holds that the origin and value of our knowledge depend on experience, so there are no innate ideas or principles.
Similarities Between Rationalism and Empiricism
- The concept is the core idea of the theory of knowledge.
- They try to explain the origin of knowledge.
- The fastest way to learn is intuition, but rationalists speak of intellectual intuition, and empiricists of sensory-perceptual intuition.
Differences Between Rationalism and Empiricism
- For empiricists, the subject is subordinate to and depends upon experience and the senses. For rationalists, it is the subject that establishes knowledge through reason.
- How to understand consciousness is another difference. Empiricists reveal a substanceless and passive role in knowledge. For rationalists, consciousness is a substance with innate content.
- For empiricism, thought depends on data that provides sensitivity. For rationalism, thought is autonomous and can judge validity.
Locke’s Critique of Nativism
John Locke argued against innate ideas or principles. In his first work, he attempted to show that there are no innate ideas or principles. Locke was critical of the idea that innate principles are naturally possessed and that, therefore, there are necessary and obvious truths when we understand the phenomena that are made.
Locke’s argument was that recognizing these truths does not imply that they are innate, and that if they were, our minds would be full of innate knowledge. Therefore, nativism is an unsubstantiated theory.
David Hume: Critique of the Idea of Cause
Knowledge of Facts
Our knowledge of facts is limited to current impressions and memories of past impressions, but there can be no knowledge of future events because we do not have any impression of what will happen.
Criticism of the Principle of Causality
The traditional principle of causality stated that, a priori, any cause produces an effect. Hume disagreed with this and criticized it.
The principle of causality is not obvious a priori. If you analyze something, we never find anything in it that can produce an effect. Nor can we say that whatever begins to exist has a cause, or that the same causes produce the same effects.
God: Locke and Berkeley had used the principle of causation to substantiate the claim that God exists. Hume said that this inference is unwarranted by reason because God is not subject to any impression.
The Self
We all have a conviction of our own identity, but that awareness, according to Hume, comes from past perceptions related to continuity and similarity. There is no perception of self, but other types of perceptions (e.g., what we hear) which are then associated with the imagination.