What are the differences between Empiricism and Rationalism?

Rene Descartes He said “I think, therefore I am”. Later, david hume he flatly stated that the only source of knowledge was sensory experience, therefore, automatically, he annulled the validity of the Cartesian expression by denying the existence of the self. Both thinkers mark two milestones in the history of philosophy, and are referents of the currents of rationalism and empiricism, respectively.

But what exactly do these two philosophies consist of? Why is it often said that they are conflicting theories and, in a certain way, irreconcilable? Do they have something in common? In the following article we will briefly analyze what are the differences between empiricism and rationalism and we will expose its main characteristics.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

The differences between Empiricism and Rationalism: irreconcilable philosophical currents?

In 1637 the famous method discourse, the main work of the philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596-1650). In the book, the thinker collects the main guidelines of his philosophy, which is known as the "Cartesian method." Among many ideas, he embodies that of

Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), which emphasizes individual thought as undeniable evidence of the existence of a I thinking (the res cogitans). In other words; if I think, and even if I doubt, it means that there is something that is thinking and doubting, which means that, indeed, the I is real.

A few years later, the Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) published his Treat of human nature, which radically sweeps Descartes' rationalism by reducing the process of knowledge to sensory experience. In this sense, and unlike other empiricists such as John Locke (1632-1704), Hume stands out as a radical empiricist, a true detractor of reason and thought as a source of knowledge, which earned him innumerable criticism during his life for his "practicing atheism".

Because it is clear that, if knowledge is reduced to the perception of the senses, it is impossible to "prove" the existence of God. For Hume, therefore, divinity is just an idea, something that is not supported by any sensible impression, so it cannot be validated in any way. So far, we see very above what are going to be the main differences between Cartesian rationalism and the empiricism of authors such as Hume: on the one hand, the way in which the human being acquires knowledge from him; on the other, the discussion of the existence of the so-called “innate ideas” that, in fact, will be the nucleus of the differentiation. Let's see it.

• You may be interested in: "The 10 branches of Philosophy (and their main thinkers)"

What are empiricism and rationalism?

Before continuing with the article, it is necessary to define more or less what both philosophical currents consist of. On the one hand, empiricism places special relevance on the experience of the senses as the main source of knowledge, therefore, according to this philosophy, the acquisition of knowledge cannot be understood without contact with empirical evidence.

For this very reason, empiricism categorically rejects the existence of innate ideas in the human beingsince, when we came into the world, we came as one blank slate, devoid of any knowledge. These ideas will be examined more closely in the next section.

For its part, rationalism, championed by René Descartes (considered by many as the "father of philosophy modern") accepts the existence of such ideas and grants special power to reason in the process of acquiring knowledge. Thus, Descartes clearly differentiated the res cogitans, the mind that thinks, from the res extensa, the body. In reality, says the philosopher, the only thing we can be sure of is the existence of our mind, of our I, since, at the moment we think, we are existing (Cogito ergo sum). We will see later how the empiricists, especially Hume, reject the idea of ​​the self as an existing entity and differentiated, conceiving it as an amalgam of changing impressions without any type of identity specific.

• Related article: "The 14 types of knowledge: what are they?"

Innate ideas versus tabula rasa

From Plato, philosophy recognizes the existence of so-called "innate ideas", that is, a series of concepts that have lived in us since we were born. This philosophy remained very valid during the Middle Ages, the quintessential Platonic age, until thinkers like Pedro Abelardo questioned this idea through the discussion on the “universals”.

The controversy increased with the arrival in Europe, in the 13th century, of Aristotelian philosophy, because despite the fact that Aristotle, while Plato's disciple, he believed in the existence of innate ideas, he also ardently defended the power of experience, that is, the observation of nature. The empiricist process of the late Middle Ages increased in the fourteenth century with thinkers such as Roger Bacon (1220-1292), Duns Scotus (d. 1308) and, above all, William of Ockham (1287-1347), the author of the famous theory of "Ockham's razor", which ended for always with the precepts of Scholasticism and inaugurated a new era of scientific thought not subject to the "tyranny" of reason.

All these authors, related to the University of Oxford and, therefore, to England, spread the seed so that, centuries later, other authors from the British Isles, such as Locke or Hume, followed in his footsteps and continued on the path of empiricism, which has been called "empiricism". English". On the contrary, the continent proliferated authors who adhered to Cartesian theories and defended, therefore, the existence of innate ideas and the supremacy of reason over sensory experience, as well as the indisputable existence of the self. They are thinkers like Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) or Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694), followers of the “continental rationalism”, led, as we have already commented, by the eminent figure of René discards.

the existence of the self

If rationalists believe in innate ideas and hold that the thinking mind has an identity of its own, then it is evident that the self exists. In reality, Descartes establishes a rather radical differentiation between the different substances or realities: on the one hand, there is the soul or the mind, the spiritual entity that thinks and feels; on the other, matter, the body, which is a mere extension of the first (res extensa). However, there would still exist a third substance, infinite and eternal: God. By definition, If divinity is infinite, it means that both thinking and material substances are also part of it.; this is precisely what Spinoza called the “sole substance”, the one that does not need anything to be.

According to Cartesian theory, the mind and the body, two separate entities, come together in the Pineal gland of the brain. The body, as an entity endowed with sensory perception, receives sensations from the outside, but, unlike Hume, Descartes does not consider them to be "reliable". According to the thinker, there are numerous sensory errors that misrepresent reality and, therefore, generate false knowledge. For example, if on a foggy day we seem to catch a glimpse of a person coming up the road and finally turned out to be a branch blown by the wind, wouldn't our minds have fooled us? senses? The ego, therefore, doubts everything that comes to it from outside. And it is precisely in that active doubt where we verify that this self does exist, because what does not exist cannot doubt. Is he Cogito ergo sum that we have already commented that, by the way, it is not an original idea of ​​Descartes, since we find it in previous authors (outlined at least) such as Gómez Pereira (1500-1567) or Agustín de Hipona (354-430).

David Hume, the main thinker of the empiricist current, absolutely rejects the idea of ​​the existence of the I. If, as empiricism maintains, knowledge only comes from sensory perception, the self is only a series of impressions that occur one after the other, but it is not an entity with substance. By substance we understand the Aristotelian idea of ​​a concrete identity in time that defines a element, so, according to Hume's theories, this could not be applied to the self, since it is neither constant nor regular.

the existence of god

Hume distinguished the impression, which is what sensory perception produces in the present, from the idea, which is nothing more than the memory we have of that impression. It follows from this that the idea is something much less vivid, since it is only an evocation of something that no longer is.

On the other hand, we have already said that for Hume an idea is only valid if it is based on perception. Nothing originating in the mind that is not related to a perception of the senses can be considered true., since the self does not exist, and neither do innate ideas. From this it follows that God is, for the philosopher, a mere idea, which, moreover, lacks a real basis, since it is not induced by perception.

No one has seen, touched or heard God; at least, through the bodily senses that, let us remember, for Hume are the only valid ones for knowledge. Therefore, God does not exist. This is, in fact, one of the fiercest criticisms that the work of the philosopher received, who was branded an atheist and, as such, categorically rejected from the University of Edinburgh.

On the other side of the coin we have René Descartes, a fervent Catholic who tried to prove the existence of God through his method. The existence of innate ideas and the separate and unique identity of the mind is testimony to the reality of a creator; on the other hand, if God is perfect, he means that he is good, and if he is good, it is inconceivable that he endowed man with a body and mind that deceive him. The very idea of ​​perfection and infinity, existing in the mind since we are born, proves that our soul has been in contact with something perfect and infinite. Therefore, God exists and, furthermore, due to his intrinsic goodness, he would never allow us to be deceived through the mind and body. Therefore, these are, according to Descartes, real instruments.

conclusions

To finish this little analysis, we will briefly review what are, in conclusion, the main differences between empiricism and rationalism. Let's see it.

First, the origin of knowledge. While empiricists defend the senses as the only way to acquire knowledge, rationalists subordinate them to the domain of reason.

Second, the belief in the existence of innate ideas. Empiricism categorically rejects them and defends the mind as a blank slate, which is filled based on experience. Instead, rationalism believes in them, especially in the ideas of infinity and perfection that, ultimately, and according to Descartes, prove the existence of God.

Third, we have the existence of the self. Empiricists like Hume deny their identity, maintaining that they are only sensory perceptions that lack constancy. Descartes, however, considers the self as a separate and autonomous entity, in connection with matter (the body) through the pineal gland. And finally, we find the existence of God. If Hume only considers true the ideas that come from sensory impressions, it is evident that, for him and according to this theory, God does not exist. On the other hand, the majority of the rationalists who followed Descartes were especially believers, and founded the existence of God through the permanence of the self and the innate ideas, which, undoubtedly, must have come from he.