Rationalism vs. Empiricism

In the branch of philosophy known as epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and truth, there are many views and opinions, rationalism and empiricism being the two largest and most debated. Rationalists believe that knowledge is achieved through the reason and logic of your sensory and experience. On the contrary, empiricists believe that knowledge is achieved through sensory experience alone and that reason and logic are not needed. Rational thought, logic and reason are required to obtain knowledge and more then just experiences through the senses is needed. The foundations for my rational conviction are found in the work of Rene Descartes who used a rational method to conclude the only thing he knew to be true, that he exists. An empirical point of view is flawed and the senses cannot be trusted to gain knowledge or the truth because the senses can deceive a person. Further support of a rational perspective can be found in the fact that ninety percent of the population believes a god, which forces them to be rationalists because they believe in something beyond the realm of sensory experience. In this essay the above arguments will be elaborated to prove and explain that rationalism is the appropriate world view for the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

“I think therefore I am” stated the French philosopher René Descartes. Descartes had doubts that he existed. He concluded that if one doubted their existence then that proved thought had occurred, and thought confirmed existence of self, hence the statement “I think therefore I am.” The only thing that Descartes could be sure of using his method was his existence. Descartes’ mind and his rational thought were used to arrive at his conclusion since empirical knowledge cannot validate existence. Empirical knowledge cannot be used to conclude existence because sensory experience alone is not enough to raise doubt of one’s existence. Doubt of existence implies logic and reason. Such doubt requires a venue for occurrence, that venue of occurrence is the existent individual using their abilities to reason.

Seeing is not believing. Sensory experience alone can not be trusted because it can and will deceive you. Take for example a dream. Within a dream we are almost certain we are experiencing reality, but once awakened we know this is not the case. We think that a dream is reality because our senses are still intact as we experience the dream world created by our thought. We experience the dream world that is created by our mind through our senses but a dream is not real and we cannot gain knowledge or truth from it. If our senses are capable of deceit in a dream then it is reasonable to expect them to do so in reality as well. For example, say I look into the distance and see two kids playing. My sense of sight is providing me with this information. I soon realize that these children are not playing, but in reality they are fighting. My senses deceived me and lead me to believe that the kids were playing; however it was through my logic and reasoning of the sensory information provided that I was able to conclude that I was watching a fight. Truth cannot be provided without proper reasoning and logic which provides the senses with judgment.