Philosophy
Introduction
Early modern philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries thought that the semantic content of our thoughts is a function of the contents of our ideas. They assumed that knowledge of the world requires a kind of thought, namely ‘justified true belief’ (Wang, 2012). In this regard, they broadly disagreed over what cognitive faculty or source provided our ideas with the type of content that generated justified true beliefs. A dominant concern during this period of intellectual enquiry was hence involved in locating the faculty which is the source of contents of ideas that led to justified true belief, and hence knowledge. Two influential schools of thought that arose in the wake of this epistemological project are rationalism and empiricism. The proponents of rationalism were Plato, Leibniz, Descartes and Chomsky, while Hobbes, Locke and Hume were proponents of empiricism (Wang, 2012). Fundamentally, a viewpoint adheres to empiricism if it holds that knowledge about any subject matter derives from experience about the subject matter. In contrast, a viewpoint adheres to rationalism if it holds that knowledge about a subject matter derives from the use of reason or our rational nature. There are three major traditional points of divergence between the empiricists and rationalists. Rationalists believe that intuition and deductive reasoning, rather than experience of that subject matter, underwrites knowledge of a subject matter. They also believe that knowledge of a particular subject matter is innate, ie determined by nature, rather than any particular course of experience. They further believe that the concepts and ideas that constitute our abilities to think about a particular subject matter are innate (Longworth, n.d.). The thesis of this paper is that empiricism provides a better worldview and basis for knowledge than rationalism.
The Intuition/ Deduction Thesis
One of the major planks on which rationalists stake their claims is the intuition/ deduction thesis. The thesis claims that there are some propositions that are known as a result of intuition alone, while other propositions can be known by being deduced from an intuited proposition (Kleinman, 2013, p. 105). Rationalists believe that intuition is a type of rational insight. Through deduction, people are able to arrive at conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments. They extend the logic to infer that a conclusion will be true if the premise on which the conclusion is based on is true. Thus, once one piece of knowledge is known, it can be used to deduce others from that original knowledge. If the original knowledge is arrived at through intuition, then the entire chain of knowledge then deduced must therefore be based on intuition, and not experience. Rationalists provide proof of the intuition/ deduction thesis using examples from mathematics, ethics, free will and even metaphysics. For example, as one can intuit that the number 5 is a prime number and is less than 6, one can accordingly deduce that there is a prime number less than 6. Descartes extends this line of argument by his claim that knowledge requires certainty, and that certainty about the external world is beyond the scope of empirical evidence. Many rationalists extend the intuition/ deduction argument to declare that ethical truths and metaphysics can be learnt through the process of intuition and deduction. Empiricists counter the intuition/deduction thesis by partially agreeing to the structure of the rationalists’ argument. Empiricists like Hume agree that the process of deduction is useful in eliciting new knowledge. However, they argue that the start point of the chain of logic lies in experience, and not on intuition (Smith, 1974, p. 89). Therefore, empiricists turn the intuition-deduction chain of logic to experience-deduction, and in effect, argue in favor of a posteriori knowledge. For instance, it is only through experience that an observer would be able to understand the concept of the number 5. Unless one sees five objects in space or is able to physically feel five objects, it would be impossible to intuit the number five. Hence, the argument about the number 5 being intuited as a prime number fails at the very start- at the understanding about the number itself. This way, empiricists undermine the intuitive root of the intuitive-deductive thesis of the rationalists.
The Innate Knowledge and Innate Concept Theses
As part of the innate knowledge thesis, rationalists claim that as part of our rational nature, we have knowledge of some truths within a particular subject. This knowledge is acquired a priori, and instead of being acquired by induction or deduction, is the part of our nature to have it. While some rationalists attribute the source of such innate knowledge to be God himself, others attribute such knowledge to be a product of natural selection (Kleinman, 2013, p. 106). Rationalists offer the innate knowledge thesis as a solution to the problem of the nature of inquiry posed by Plato in ‘Meno’. Plato had observed that we gain knowledge about a theorem of geometry through inquiry, but had argued that knowledge through inquiry is impossible (Smith, 1974, p. 89). Rationalists bridged this challenge through the innate knowledge thesis, arguing that there are some things that man is a priori aware. The innate knowledge thesis that developed had major contributions from Plato and Descartes. Plato, in ‘Phaedo’, argues that we recollect things because the presence of immutable ‘Forms’, that we have ideas that we neither know we have or are conscious of, but we possess nevertheless if we are capable of cognitive function (Banham, n.d.). Similarly, Descartes, in the ‘Third Meditation’, argues that some of the ideas we possess are caused by things outside of us, some are inventions of our imaginations and some are innate. Amongst the latter, Descartes included the ideas of God, mind, body, triangle and those that represent true and eternal essences (Banham, n.d.). Descartes overcame initial objections to his theory of innate knowledge from Thomas Hobbes and Pierre Gassendi. Hobbes and Gassendi pointed out that Descartes’ concept of innate ideas appeared to require that we always think, and yet there were periods of unconsciousness as indicating that we do not always think. Descartes overcame this objection by stating that we do not have to say that just because an idea is innate that we always have it; rather, it is an idea we could always summon up (Banham, n.d.).
Rationalists also put forth the innate concept thesis in support of a priori knowledge. They argue that as part of out nature, humans have concepts that they employ in a specific subject. According to the innate concept thesis, some knowledge is not the result of experience; however, sensory experience can trigger the process that brings this knowledge into our consciousness. While experience can act as the trigger, it still does not provide concepts or determine what the information is. This concept is different from the innate knowledge thesis because here, knowledge can be deduced from innate concepts. With the innate concept thesis, the more removed a concept is from experience, the more plausible it is to claim it as innate. For instance, a concept on geometric shapes would be more innate than a concept on experiencing pain because it is further removed from experience. In effect, rationalists concede that the experience of seeing a geometric shape brings it into the consciousness of an observer, but it is his innate concept of proportions that would lead him to understand intuitively that a shape is regular of irregular (Kleinman, 2013, p. 106).
Empiricists such as John Locke put forth the best arguments against the innate knowledge and innate concept thesis. Locke argues that there can be no notions that are ‘stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being and brings into the world’ (Locke, 2009, p. 272). Locke argues that if principles were innate, then everyone would be agreeing with them. However, one observes that there is no universal assent to any argument. Throughout history, people of different epochs and cultures have had divergent belief systems, and there has been no common viewpoint throughout history. Different experiences would have played a role in people developing different viewpoints. As a result, there is divergence from the concept of universal assent. Rationalists counter Locke’s assertions taking the example of children. They argue that children lack the verbal and cognitive maturity of adults, and yet they are capable of displaying knowledge of maxims like ‘whatever is, is’ and ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’ through their simplistic actions. Locke counters this argument by replying that if a child is not conscious of a maxim, it is not possible for the child to give it assent. Locke extends his argument and says that the maxims we consider as innate are actually derived from the senses and the influence of society. Theoretically, if innate principles were to exist, they would be more evident amongst children, as children are less exposed to and affected by society at large. Locke further demolishes the idea of innate ideas being unique by arguing that there are other things that we agree on universally, thus making universal assent no longer a unique quality to innate ideas. For instance, we universally agree that 2+2=4, but mathematics is essentially an empirical science. Therefore, if universal assent were to mean that an innate idea existed, then empirical truths such as mathematics would also be considered innate truths. However, children do not know such mathematical ideas a priori, thus weakening the rationalists’ argument about a priori knowledge through innate ideas. Rationalists might argue people would arrive at facts such as 2+2=4 through a process of reason. To this, Locke’s counter argument remains that if reason were used to arrive at 2+2=4, the knowledge by definition is not innate and not known a priori.
Rationalists have used the innate knowledge theory to advance the concept of color. They have argued that color is intuitively understood and assimilated. The empirical argument against the intuitive understanding of the concept of color is that blind people cannot appreciate the nuances of color. It is only through experience of vision that people can understand the concept of color. Therefore, even something as universal as color requires experience for a human to fathom its meaning.
Geometry is by far the strongest argument put forth by rationalists in their arguments in favor of a priori knowledge. Rationalists claim that geometry has ‘mathematical certainty’. They argue that mathematical demonstration consists of logical deductions from other propositions previously established. This procedure would involve infinite regress unless some propositions were accepted without proof. Such propositions are found in every mathematical discipline, and are known as axioms and postulates. Geometry is based on the classical set of postulates of Euclid, and follows the broader pattern of mathematical postulates by a process of generalizing the principles espoused in postulates. However, it is lately realized that the basic postulates upon which the myriad theorems of Euclidian geometry are deductively built upon may not be absolutely true. For instance, in more recent developments of mathematics, several systems of geometry have been constructed that are incompatible with Euclidean geometry. The postulates on which Euclidian geometry rests include the famous postulates of the parallels, which assert that through every point P not on a given line l, there exists exactly one parallel to l, ie one straight line that does not meet l. This postulate is found to be inapplicable in new forms of non-Euclidian geometry. In the case of hyperbolic geometry, for instance, the axiom of parallels is replaced by the postulate that no line has any parallels (Hempel, 1945, p.10). The fact that there are different types of geometry developed in modern mathematics shows clearly that mathematics cannot be said to assert the truth of any particular set of geometric postulates; all that pure mathematics can establish is the deductive consequences of a given set of postulates, and thus the truths therein are relative to the frame of reference. Therefore, new forms of geometry in effect demolish the innate concept thesis of the rationalists.
With geometry out of the way, it is relatively easier to contest the arguments of the rationalists in the realms of the physical sciences. During the days of Locke and Hume, the progress of science became rapid, and continues to be so. Therefore, there could be no innate knowledge that could be demonstrably agreed upon as a priori. All knowledge in the physical world is based upon empirical evidence. New evidence is unearthed every day, making the previously held belief redundant. For example, rationalists had argued earlier that the concept of vacuum was rationally implausible. However, advances in science proved the rationalists wrong. Similarly, rationalists of the 1950s might have argued for all deductions in the world of physics to begin with the structure of the atom; yet, discovery of sub atomic particles would have rendered their assertions to be false. In effect, any claim of prior knowledge about the physical world is suspect. New ways of empirically observing the world, together with new instruments afforded by advances in technology, are forever providing new insights about the world around us, forever underlining the importance and validity of a posteriori knowledge; is knowledge gained from observations.
Conclusion
The planks of rationalism essentially devolve around the concepts of intuition-deduction, innate knowledge and innate concepts. Empiricism is successful in countering all the foundations on which rationalism is created. Empiricists have successfully argues that the start point in a logical chain of intuition –deduction is not that of intuition, but rather of experience. Similarly, Locke has been successful in proving that there is no such thing as innate knowledge. The biggest arsenal in favor of rationalists’ argument of innate knowledge, geometry, stands moderated in view of recent advances in non-Euclidian geometry. Advances in science today make many of the certainties of the past questionable, in effect putting into question the very foundation of innate knowledge. Thus, it can be said that empiricism is the preferred worldview, rather than rationalism.
References
Banham, G. (n.d.). Locke 1: critique of innate ideas. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from http://www.garybanham.net/lectures_files/problecture06.pdf
Hempel, C.G. (1945). Geometry and empirical science. The American Mathematical Monthly 52/1: 7-17. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from https://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/teaching/phi520_s2015/hempel-geometry.pdf
Kleinman, P. (2013). Philosophy 101. Avon, MA: Adams Media.
Locke, J. (2009). An essay concerning human understanding. In Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. (Ed.s). Modern philosophy, an anthology of primary sources. Indianapolis, IND: Hackett.
Longworth, G. (n.d.). Rationalism and empiricism. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/longworth/keyideasrationalismempiricism.pdf
Smith, G. (1974). Atheism. eBook. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=hf7TCgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Wang, T. (2012). Empiricism, rationalism and Plato’s innatism. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www3.nd.edu/~twang6/teaching/Handout1EmpRat.pdf
