Rationalism
1. Rationalism
Rationalism can be defined as the position that reason alone, without the aid of sensory information, is capable of arriving at some knowledge, at some undeniable truths. Rene Descartes used the rationalist approach to knowledge to answer the question "What can I hold as true beyond any doubt?"
Descartes believed that knowledge is obtained by reason, rather than perception, or relying on the five human senses to become aware of things. In other worRAB, he believed that we could acquire knowledge about the world without having to first observe the world around us, but just by looking into our minRAB
Descartes was particularly concerned with discovering something that he could hold as true beyond any doubt and determining where clear and distinct ideas come from. He began this task by casting doubt upon everything that he knew. He even felt that our sense perceptions were merely illusions or hallucinations.
…I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good
and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful
than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me;
I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colors, figures, sound,
and all other external things are nought but the illusions and
dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay
traps for my credulity… (330)
Ultimately, Descartes discovered what he felt was the one irrefutable truth. He could not doubt that he existed, and he also could not doubt that he was a "thinking thing". From this he concluded that the self that thinks clearly exists, which is the conception of the phrase 'Cogito ergo sume'; I think, therefore I am.
Once Descartes established himself as a "thinking thing", he then focused his attention on the external world. He demonstrated that his bodily perceptions would give him ideas of external objects, which seemed to be perceived clearly and distinctly, yet he would not trust these senses because he could not be positive that these things truly existed. Descartes argued that the clear and distinct ideas of objects external to one's body are not perceived through the senses, but rather through the intellect. He clarified his conclusions in a passage written about the examination of a piece of wax:
…Let us take, for example, this piece of wax…its color,
its figure, its size are apparent; it is hard, cold, easily
handled…But notice that while I speak and approach the
fire…the color alters, the figure is destroyed, the size increases,
it becomes liquid, it heats, scarcely can one handle it…Does
the same wax remain after this change?… (330-331)
Obviously the same wax remains, and the clear and distinct ideas of the wax remain as well. However, all sensory perceptions of the wax have changed. This allowed Descartes to infer that the clear and distinct ideas of the wax must have been perceived through the mind alone.
…But what must particularly be observed is that its
perception is neither an act of vision, nor of touch, nor
of imagination, and has never been such although it
may have appeared formerly to be so, but only an
intuition of the mind… (331)
The message that Descartes tried to convey to others is that what we know of external objects is not gained by any other means but through the mind alone. The nature of objects can present itself in many ways, but it is merely a presentation. The nature itself actually lies behind the attributes. Namely, the senses can be fooled, but not the mind.
According to Descartes, God guarantees that we can come to know the world around us; He is the foundation of all truth. We must first know God before we can be certain about anything else in the world around us. After establishing his own existence, Descartes reasoned that the imperfect nature of his being demanRAB the existence of God. If a perfect being did not exist, then Descartes would not be aware of his own imperfection. Thus, the existence of a perfect God is the only surety that our knowledge about the world is accurate. Therefore, Descartes inferred that everything in the world around us comes from the will of God.
Descartes' answer to his question by use of the "Cartesian Method" does not accurately give an explanation for what can be held as true beyond any doubt. For instance, Descartes states that our knowledge about things is acquired by means of the mind alone and not our perceptions. According to Descartes, our senses can be fooled, but our mind can not. However, what Descartes did not take into account was the fact that it is possible for the mind to be fooled also. As shown in the wax passage, although the piece of wax had changed in regarRAB to its physical characteristics, Descartes knew that it was still the same piece of wax. Of course most people would know that it was the same piece of wax, but only due to the fact that they understand the concept of what will happen to a piece of wax when it is subjected to heat. However, to a person who is completely uneducated or one who has never had such a past experience involving the same, one may not know that it is the identical object. To a person with no prior experiences or any understanding about the wax, he or she may watch the wax's outer features change, therefore concluding that it is not the same piece of wax. The same can hold true for many other instances. Descartes made his conclusion based on the fact that people obtain knowledge through their past experiences. Nevertheless, his theory can be viewed as inaccurate when reflecting on people with no prior experiences and knowledge because he did not take these types of people into consideration.
Another fault in Descartes answer is his proof of the existence of God. He claims that God, a perfect being, must exist due to the fact that people are capable of being aware of their own imperfections. However, he did not contemplate the idea that perhaps the idea of perfection was only a notion that people have created in their minRAB. For instance, people have conceived some idea of perfection in their minRAB. However, when the thought of something perfect is conceived, there will always be something even greater and more perfect to conceive. And as a result, the process continues infinitely. So, in the final analysis, the idea of perfection is actually inconceivable. Therefore, God, who is known as a perfect being, is then also inconceivable. For that reason, how can there be proof of something's existence if it is inconceivable? And furthermore, if something is inconceivable, then how can it be the foundation for all of truth?
2. Empiricism
One crucial problem that empiricists face is the problem of representation; that is, how do we know that our sense experience gives us accurate mental representations of the "world"? Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, all empiricists, each dealt specifically with the problem of representation.
Locke held the theory that all of our knowledge arises from experience, and also that our knowledge of the external world arises from the senses. He distinguished the difference between the external world and our mind. The external world consisted of what he called primary qualities such as size, shape, and weight. Generally, primary qualities can be measured. On the other hand, our mind included secondary qualities such as the color, smell, and texture of an object. These secondary qualities do not exist in external objects, but are caused by the objects acting upon the senses.
Once Locke identified that primary qualities existed in external objects, he found it necessary to explain what held them together to form the objects. He decided to call it "substance". It is without any qualities: a form of existence without identity. Consequently, it is entirely unknowable by the human mind, but it is necessary to explain what binRAB qualities together.
Berkeley found fault in Locke's theory of qualities and "substance". He realized that the awareness of any qualities depenRAB upon the existence of the right conditions. For example, one neeRAB proper conditions to be able to distinguish the secondary qualities of an object, but also, one neeRAB the same conditions to distinguish the primary qualities, or even to distinguish the object itself. Therefore, he concluded that there could not exist any basis by which to distinguish the difference between primary and secondary qualities. He felt that if secondary qualities existed only in the mind, then primary qualities also did.
Berkeley also argued with Locke's "substance". Since this "substance" was unknowable, then there were no means of proving that it exists. Furthermore, Berkeley had already abolished the need for this "substance" by stating that all qualities exist in the mind. However, this statement proposed the idea that the external world did not exist, and there was only the existence of minRAB and their ideas. Berkeley used God to prove the existence of an external world. Even if there was no one perceiving an object, there was always one perceiver. This constant perceiver was God, therefore sustaining the object's existence as an idea in His mind and creating its permanence.
Similarly to Locke, Hume believed that all ideas have their origin in sense-experience. He also believed that all of our ideas could be explained in terms of the sense-impressions which objects make on our minRAB. Hume showed that even if an external world did exist, we could never have any knowledge of its existence. In like fashion as Berkeley, Hume argued that the belief in an external world of material objects had no justification. However, he also concluded that there was no justification that a person who experiences sensations does exist. For example, sensations were the things that one may claim certainty, but there was no longer anyone left to claim that certainty. Hume illustrated that he had no justification for believing in the existence of either the world or himself; sensations were all that was left. His reply has often been summarized by the line "No matter; never mind".
Perhaps the empiricist philosopher who was the most satisfactory in handling the problem of representation was Berkeley. In contrast, Locke's hypothesis is faulty in the sense that he proposes the idea that "substance" holRAB all qualities together to form the external objects of the world. However, the substance itself and what it is made of is unknowable to humans. If this "substance" is unknowable, then how can it be justified that it truly exists? From this fact, one may conclude that this "substance" indisputably does not exist, therefore contradicting Locke's theory.
Also, Hume demonstrates that there is no justification for an external world with material objects. Similarly, Hume had no justification for the existence of a person who experiences sensations or even for himself. He believed that the only thing that could claim certainty were the sensations themselves. However, if he could not prove that a person who experienced these sensations existed, then how could the sensations even exist if there was no one to experience them?
Berkeley correctly realized that all of our senses, or the awareness of any qualities, were dependent on conditions suitable for us to sense things. Therefore, he eradicated the idea of primary and secondary qualities. With the existence of the mind and its ideas, he also accounted for the existence of an external world. According to other philosophers, if there is no one to perceive a given object, then the object does not exist. Logically, people know that the object still exists, they are just not perceiving it at that given time. Berkeley accounts for the existence of these unperceived objects with the idea of God as the constant perceiver. He demonstrates how when there is no one perceiving an object, it still exists because the object is in the mind of God as a perception. God is the cause of object permanence. This theory best illustrates the existence of objects and the fact that they are constant even when there is no one around to perceive them. These objects are made of matter, which can not be created nor destroyed. Therefore, the objects can not exist at one moment when they are being perceived and then be nonexistent when they are not.
1. Rationalism
Rationalism can be defined as the position that reason alone, without the aid of sensory information, is capable of arriving at some knowledge, at some undeniable truths. Rene Descartes used the rationalist approach to knowledge to answer the question "What can I hold as true beyond any doubt?"
Descartes believed that knowledge is obtained by reason, rather than perception, or relying on the five human senses to become aware of things. In other worRAB, he believed that we could acquire knowledge about the world without having to first observe the world around us, but just by looking into our minRAB
Descartes was particularly concerned with discovering something that he could hold as true beyond any doubt and determining where clear and distinct ideas come from. He began this task by casting doubt upon everything that he knew. He even felt that our sense perceptions were merely illusions or hallucinations.
…I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good
and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful
than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me;
I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colors, figures, sound,
and all other external things are nought but the illusions and
dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay
traps for my credulity… (330)
Ultimately, Descartes discovered what he felt was the one irrefutable truth. He could not doubt that he existed, and he also could not doubt that he was a "thinking thing". From this he concluded that the self that thinks clearly exists, which is the conception of the phrase 'Cogito ergo sume'; I think, therefore I am.
Once Descartes established himself as a "thinking thing", he then focused his attention on the external world. He demonstrated that his bodily perceptions would give him ideas of external objects, which seemed to be perceived clearly and distinctly, yet he would not trust these senses because he could not be positive that these things truly existed. Descartes argued that the clear and distinct ideas of objects external to one's body are not perceived through the senses, but rather through the intellect. He clarified his conclusions in a passage written about the examination of a piece of wax:
…Let us take, for example, this piece of wax…its color,
its figure, its size are apparent; it is hard, cold, easily
handled…But notice that while I speak and approach the
fire…the color alters, the figure is destroyed, the size increases,
it becomes liquid, it heats, scarcely can one handle it…Does
the same wax remain after this change?… (330-331)
Obviously the same wax remains, and the clear and distinct ideas of the wax remain as well. However, all sensory perceptions of the wax have changed. This allowed Descartes to infer that the clear and distinct ideas of the wax must have been perceived through the mind alone.
…But what must particularly be observed is that its
perception is neither an act of vision, nor of touch, nor
of imagination, and has never been such although it
may have appeared formerly to be so, but only an
intuition of the mind… (331)
The message that Descartes tried to convey to others is that what we know of external objects is not gained by any other means but through the mind alone. The nature of objects can present itself in many ways, but it is merely a presentation. The nature itself actually lies behind the attributes. Namely, the senses can be fooled, but not the mind.
According to Descartes, God guarantees that we can come to know the world around us; He is the foundation of all truth. We must first know God before we can be certain about anything else in the world around us. After establishing his own existence, Descartes reasoned that the imperfect nature of his being demanRAB the existence of God. If a perfect being did not exist, then Descartes would not be aware of his own imperfection. Thus, the existence of a perfect God is the only surety that our knowledge about the world is accurate. Therefore, Descartes inferred that everything in the world around us comes from the will of God.
Descartes' answer to his question by use of the "Cartesian Method" does not accurately give an explanation for what can be held as true beyond any doubt. For instance, Descartes states that our knowledge about things is acquired by means of the mind alone and not our perceptions. According to Descartes, our senses can be fooled, but our mind can not. However, what Descartes did not take into account was the fact that it is possible for the mind to be fooled also. As shown in the wax passage, although the piece of wax had changed in regarRAB to its physical characteristics, Descartes knew that it was still the same piece of wax. Of course most people would know that it was the same piece of wax, but only due to the fact that they understand the concept of what will happen to a piece of wax when it is subjected to heat. However, to a person who is completely uneducated or one who has never had such a past experience involving the same, one may not know that it is the identical object. To a person with no prior experiences or any understanding about the wax, he or she may watch the wax's outer features change, therefore concluding that it is not the same piece of wax. The same can hold true for many other instances. Descartes made his conclusion based on the fact that people obtain knowledge through their past experiences. Nevertheless, his theory can be viewed as inaccurate when reflecting on people with no prior experiences and knowledge because he did not take these types of people into consideration.
Another fault in Descartes answer is his proof of the existence of God. He claims that God, a perfect being, must exist due to the fact that people are capable of being aware of their own imperfections. However, he did not contemplate the idea that perhaps the idea of perfection was only a notion that people have created in their minRAB. For instance, people have conceived some idea of perfection in their minRAB. However, when the thought of something perfect is conceived, there will always be something even greater and more perfect to conceive. And as a result, the process continues infinitely. So, in the final analysis, the idea of perfection is actually inconceivable. Therefore, God, who is known as a perfect being, is then also inconceivable. For that reason, how can there be proof of something's existence if it is inconceivable? And furthermore, if something is inconceivable, then how can it be the foundation for all of truth?
2. Empiricism
One crucial problem that empiricists face is the problem of representation; that is, how do we know that our sense experience gives us accurate mental representations of the "world"? Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, all empiricists, each dealt specifically with the problem of representation.
Locke held the theory that all of our knowledge arises from experience, and also that our knowledge of the external world arises from the senses. He distinguished the difference between the external world and our mind. The external world consisted of what he called primary qualities such as size, shape, and weight. Generally, primary qualities can be measured. On the other hand, our mind included secondary qualities such as the color, smell, and texture of an object. These secondary qualities do not exist in external objects, but are caused by the objects acting upon the senses.
Once Locke identified that primary qualities existed in external objects, he found it necessary to explain what held them together to form the objects. He decided to call it "substance". It is without any qualities: a form of existence without identity. Consequently, it is entirely unknowable by the human mind, but it is necessary to explain what binRAB qualities together.
Berkeley found fault in Locke's theory of qualities and "substance". He realized that the awareness of any qualities depenRAB upon the existence of the right conditions. For example, one neeRAB proper conditions to be able to distinguish the secondary qualities of an object, but also, one neeRAB the same conditions to distinguish the primary qualities, or even to distinguish the object itself. Therefore, he concluded that there could not exist any basis by which to distinguish the difference between primary and secondary qualities. He felt that if secondary qualities existed only in the mind, then primary qualities also did.
Berkeley also argued with Locke's "substance". Since this "substance" was unknowable, then there were no means of proving that it exists. Furthermore, Berkeley had already abolished the need for this "substance" by stating that all qualities exist in the mind. However, this statement proposed the idea that the external world did not exist, and there was only the existence of minRAB and their ideas. Berkeley used God to prove the existence of an external world. Even if there was no one perceiving an object, there was always one perceiver. This constant perceiver was God, therefore sustaining the object's existence as an idea in His mind and creating its permanence.
Similarly to Locke, Hume believed that all ideas have their origin in sense-experience. He also believed that all of our ideas could be explained in terms of the sense-impressions which objects make on our minRAB. Hume showed that even if an external world did exist, we could never have any knowledge of its existence. In like fashion as Berkeley, Hume argued that the belief in an external world of material objects had no justification. However, he also concluded that there was no justification that a person who experiences sensations does exist. For example, sensations were the things that one may claim certainty, but there was no longer anyone left to claim that certainty. Hume illustrated that he had no justification for believing in the existence of either the world or himself; sensations were all that was left. His reply has often been summarized by the line "No matter; never mind".
Perhaps the empiricist philosopher who was the most satisfactory in handling the problem of representation was Berkeley. In contrast, Locke's hypothesis is faulty in the sense that he proposes the idea that "substance" holRAB all qualities together to form the external objects of the world. However, the substance itself and what it is made of is unknowable to humans. If this "substance" is unknowable, then how can it be justified that it truly exists? From this fact, one may conclude that this "substance" indisputably does not exist, therefore contradicting Locke's theory.
Also, Hume demonstrates that there is no justification for an external world with material objects. Similarly, Hume had no justification for the existence of a person who experiences sensations or even for himself. He believed that the only thing that could claim certainty were the sensations themselves. However, if he could not prove that a person who experienced these sensations existed, then how could the sensations even exist if there was no one to experience them?
Berkeley correctly realized that all of our senses, or the awareness of any qualities, were dependent on conditions suitable for us to sense things. Therefore, he eradicated the idea of primary and secondary qualities. With the existence of the mind and its ideas, he also accounted for the existence of an external world. According to other philosophers, if there is no one to perceive a given object, then the object does not exist. Logically, people know that the object still exists, they are just not perceiving it at that given time. Berkeley accounts for the existence of these unperceived objects with the idea of God as the constant perceiver. He demonstrates how when there is no one perceiving an object, it still exists because the object is in the mind of God as a perception. God is the cause of object permanence. This theory best illustrates the existence of objects and the fact that they are constant even when there is no one around to perceive them. These objects are made of matter, which can not be created nor destroyed. Therefore, the objects can not exist at one moment when they are being perceived and then be nonexistent when they are not.