24

Dear murugappan,

 Empiricism

In both everyday attitudes and philosophical theories, the experiences referred to by empiricists are principally those arising from the stimulation of the sense organs—i.e., from visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory sensation. (In addition to these five kinds of sensation, some empiricists also recognize kinesthetic sensation, or the sensation of movement.) Most philosophical empiricists, however, have maintained that sensation is not the only provider of experience, admitting as empirical the awareness of mental states in introspection or reflection (such as the awareness that one is in pain or that one is frightened); such mental states are then often described metaphorically as being present to an “inner sense.” It is a controversial question whether still further types of experience, such as moral, aesthetic, or religious experience, ought to be acknowledged as empirical. A crucial consideration is that, as the scope of “experience” is broadened, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a domain of genuinely a priori propositions. If, for example, one were to take the mathematician’s intuition of relationships between numbers as a kind of experience, one would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of knowledge that is not ultimately empir

Even when empiricists agree on what should count as experience, however, they may still disagree fundamentally about how experience itself should be understood. Some empiricists, for example, conceive of sensation in such a way that what one is aware of in sensation is always a mind-dependent entity (sometimes referred to as a “sense datum”). Others embrace some version of “direct realism,” according to which one can directly perceive or be aware of physical objects or physical properties (see epistemology: realism). Thus there may be radical theoretical differences even among empiricists who are committed to the notion that all concepts are constructed out of elements given in sensation.

Empiricism is the philosophical stance according to which the senses are the ultimate source of human knowledge. It stands in contrast to rationalism, according to which reason is the ultimate source of knowledge. In Western philosophy, empiricism boasts a long and distinguished list of followers; it became particularly popular during the 1600's and 1700's. Some of the most important British empiricists of that time included John Locke and David Hume.

Empiricists Maintain That Experience Leads to Understanding

Empiricists claim that all ideas that a mind can entertain have been formed through some experience or – to use a slightly more technical term – through some impression. Here is how David Hume expressed this creed: "it must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea". Indeed – Hume continues in Book II – "all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones."

Limits of Empiricism

There are many limits to empiricism and many objections to the idea that experience can make it possible for us to adequately understand the full breadth of human experience. Another abstract concept that is difficult to describe from the empirical perspective is the idea of the self. Which sort of impression could ever teach us such an idea?

DESCARTES AND RATIONALISM:

Rationalism is a philosophical movement which gathered momentum during the Age of Reason of the 17th Century. It is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy during this period by the major rationalist figures, Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza.

Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive reason (as opposed to sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the source of knowledge or justification. Thus, it holds that some propositions are knowable by us by intuition alone, while others are knowable by being deduced through valid arguments from intuited propositions. It relies on the idea that reality has a rational structure in that all aspects of it can be grasped through mathematical and logical principles, and not simply through sensory experience.

Rationalists believe that, rather than being a "tabula rasa" to be imprinted with sense data, the mind is structured by, and responds to, mathematical methods of reasoning. Some of our knowledge or the concepts we employ are part of our innate rational 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, which has in some way been with us all along. See the section on the doctrine of Rationalism for more details.

Rationalism is usually contrasted with Empiricism (the view that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience and sensory perception), and it is often referred to as Continental Rationalism because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas British Empiricism dominated in Britain. However, the distinction between the two is perhaps not as clear-cut as is sometimes suggested, and would probably not have even been recognized by the philosophers involved. Although Rationalists asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, they also observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings, except in specific areas such as mathematics.

It has some similarities in ideology and intent to the earlier Humanist movement in that it aims to provide a framework for philosophical discourse outside of religious or supernatural beliefs. But in other respects there is little to compare. While the roots of Rationalism may go back to the Eleatics and Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, or at least to Platonists and Neo-Platonists, the definitive formulation of the theory had to wait until the 17th Century philosophers of the Age of Reason.

René Descartes is one of the earliest and best known proponents of Rationalism, which is often known as Cartesianism (and followers of Descartes' formulation of Rationalism as Cartesians). He believed that knowledge of eternal truths (e.g. mathematics and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences) could be attained by reason alone, without the need for any sensory experience. Other knowledge (e.g. the knowledge of physics), required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method - a moderate rationalist position. For instance, his famous dictum "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is a conclusion reached a priori and not through an inference from experience. Descartes held that some ideas (innate ideas) come from God; others ideas are derived from sensory experience; and still others are fictitious (or created by the imagination). Of these, the only ideas which are certainly valid, according to Descartes, are those which are innate.

Baruch Spinoza expanded upon Descartes' basic principles of Rationalism. His philosophy centered on several principles, most of which relied on his notion that God is the only absolute substance (similar to Descartes' conception of God), and that substance is composed of two attributes, thought and extension. He believed that all aspects of the natural world (including Man) were modes of the eternal substance of God, and can therefore only be known through pure thought or reason.

Gottfried Leibniz attempted to rectify what he saw as some of the problems that were not settled by Descartes by combining Descartes' work with Aristotle's notion of form and his own conception of the universe as composed of monads. He believed that ideas exist in the intellect innately, but only in a virtual sense, and it is only when the mind reflects on itself that those ideas are actualized.

Nicolas Malebranche is another well-known Rationalist, who attempted to square the Rationalism of René Descartes with his strong Christian convictions and his implicit acceptance of the teachings of St. Augustine. He posited that although humans attain knowledge through ideas rather than sensory perceptions, those ideas exist only in God, so that when we access them intellectually, we apprehend objective truth. His views were hotly contested by another Cartesian Rationalist and Jensenist Antoine Arnauld (1612 - 1694), although mainly on theological grounds.

In the 18th Century, the great French rationalists of the Enlightenment (often known as French Rationalism) include Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles de Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755). These philosophers produced some of the most powerful and influential political and philosophical writing in Western history, and had a defining influence on the subsequent history of Western democracy and Liberalism.

During the middle of the 20th Century there was a strong tradition of organized Rationalism (represented in Britain by the Rationalist Press Association, for example), which was particularly influenced by free thinkers and intellectuals. However, Rationalism in this sense has little in common with traditional Continental Rationalism, and is marked more by a reliance on empirical science. It accepted the supremacy of reason but insisted that the results be verifiable by experience and independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority

Rationalism:

Rationalism is the philosophical stance according to which reason is the ultimate source of human knowledge. It stands in contrast to empiricism, according to which the senses suffice in justifying knowledge.

In one form or another, rationalism features in most philosophical traditions. In the Western tradition, it boasts a long and distinguished list of followers, including Plato, Descartes, and Kant. Rationalism continues to be a major philosophical approach to decision-making today.

Descartes' Case for Rationalism

How do we come to know objects — through the senses or through reason? According to Descartes, the latter option is the correct one.

As an example of Descartes' approach to rationalism, consider polygons (i.e. closed, plane figures in geometry). How do we know that something is a triangle as opposed to a square? The senses may seem to play a key role in our understanding: we see that a figure has three sides or four sides. But now consider two polygons — one with a thousand sides and the other with a thousand and one sides. Which is which? In order to distinguish between the two, it will be necessary to count the sides — using reason to tell them apart.

For Descartes, reason is involved in all of our knowledge. This is because our understanding of objects is nuanced by reason. For example, how do you know that the person in the mirror is, in fact, yourself? How does each of us recognize the purpose or significance of objects such as pots, guns, or fences? How do we distinguish one similar object from another? Reason alone can explain such puzzles.

Using Rationalism as a Tool for Understanding Ourselves in the World

Since the justification of knowledge occupies a central role in philosophical theorizing, it is typical to sort out philosophers on the basis of their stance with respect to the rationalist vs. empiricist debate. Rationalism indeed characterizes a wide range of philosophical topics.

How do we know who and what we are?  Rationalists typically claim that the self is known through a rational intuition, which is irreducible to any sensorial perception of ourselves; empiricists, on the other hand, reply that the unity of the self is illusory.

What is the nature of cause and effect? Rationalists claim that causal links are known through reason. The empiricist's response is that it is only because of habit that we come to be convinced that, say, fire is hot.

How do we know which actions are ethically correct?  Kant argued that the ethical worth of an action can be understood only from a rational perspective; ethical evaluation is a rational game in which one or more rational agents envisage their actions under hypothetical conditions.

Of course, in a practical sense, it is almost impossible to separate rationalism from empiricism. We cannot make rational decisions without the information provided to us through our senses, nor can we make empirical decisions without considering their rational implications.

Affectionately

Gandhiram.