Rationalism VS Empiricism

       Under the umbrella of Epistemology lie two (2) opposing stones of the foundation of knowledge. One rests on reason while the other on experience. Which is which?

            Rationalism, from the Greek word “ratio” which means reason, is a school of thought that acknowledges reason as the primary starting point of knowledge. It stresses the fact that a human being is called as a rational animal because he has the faculty of reason including logic and mathematics. Thus, we find the answers to our questions by thinking logically. Also, this view holds the idea that we are born with ready-made tools for creativity. In other words, we have our innate knowledge with us which in turn allows us to organize our experiences in the world. It is just another way of saying that humans are born with a mind populated with several concepts of knowledge ready for use. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, is the key proponent of Rationalism. He developed doubt to almost everything even on his own existence. However, as he was on this doubting stage, he began to realize that he was also thinking. And this has led him to conclude with his famous line “Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I exist.”

            Empiricism, on the other hand, is the negation of Rationalism. This covers the idea that the sole source of knowledge is experience as apprehended by the senses. John Locke, a strong advocate of this view, gave rise to the concept of human mind as that of a blank slate or popularly known as “tabula raza” theory. This asserts that there is no such thing as innate knowledge and that we are born with nothing in our minds. But as time progresses, we begin to fill it up with knowledge base on our experiences. As a matter of fact, according to this theory, innate knowledge is not observable and is therefore unreliable. In the same way, no matter how brilliant a man is, still he will not be able to evaluate everything in isolation and will not have the ability to form ideas prior to having an experience. A classic example to which the Empiricists reckon about is the notion of colors. If innate knowledge really exists, then how can a man born blind distinguish one color from another? How can he determine that “black” is black and “red” is red? It is only through experience with the aid of the sense of sight that he can be able to know these things. To this account, they came to an end that sensory experience truly prevails. Nevertheless, rationalists also insinuated their stand that if we are nothing other than what we experience in life, then we are just like machines being manipulated by our very own experience. If sensory experience is the sole source of knowledge, then how can it justify the existence of God? We have not seen God, yet we acknowledge his presence?

            This philosophical battle brings about a healthy dispute of ideas with regards to the source of knowledge. However, to reconcile the situation, we can say that both of the said views contain a strong point to stress about. Rationalism and Empiricism are both sources of knowledge. We have our reasoning faculty as an innate factor within us. And it is our experience which strengthens it. Though Empiricism tells us that experience is the best teacher, still the truth about Rationalism cannot be denied. In simple sense, one is connected with the other.

Additionally, we should take into consideration that God is the universal source of knowledge. Everything originates from Him. Without Him, nothing will ever exist, not even reason nor experience.