What Are The Differences Between Empiricism And Rationalism?

René Descartes said “I think, therefore I am.” Later, David Hume stated categorically that the only source of knowledge was sensory experience, which automatically nullified 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 references 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 opposing theories and, in some ways, irreconcilable? Do they have any point in common? In the following article we will briefly analyze what they are the differences between empiricism and rationalism and we will expose its main characteristics.

The differences between Empiricism and Rationalism: irreconcilable philosophical currents?

In 1637 the famous Discourse of the method, the main work of the philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596-1650). In the book, the thinker collects the main guidelines of his philosophy, what is known as the “Cartesian method.” Among many ideas, he captures that of Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), which places emphasis on individual thought as undeniable evidence of the existence of a I thinking (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 self is real.

A few years later, the Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) published his Treat of human nature, which radically sweeps away 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 countless criticisms during his lifetime for his “practicing atheism.”

Because it is clear that, if knowledge is reduced to sense perception, 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 aspect. Up to this point, we see very briefly what the main differences are going to be between Cartesian rationalism and the empiricism of authors like Hume: on the one hand, the way in which human beings acquire knowledge about it; on the other, the discussion of the existence of the so-called “innate ideas” which, in fact, will be the core of the differentiation. Let’s see it.

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 importance on the experience of the senses as the main source of knowledge, which is why, according to this philosophy, the acquisition of knowledge cannot be understood without contact with empirical evidence.

For this same reason, empiricism categorically rejects the existence of innate ideas in human beings since, upon coming into the world, we come as one tabula rasa, empty of any knowledge. We will examine these ideas more carefully in the next section.

For its part, rationalism, championed by René Descartes (considered by many as the “father of modern philosophy”) 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 thinking mind, from the res extenso, the body. In reality, says the philosopher, the only thing we can be sure of is the existence of our mind, our Isince, at the moment we think, we are existing (Cogito ergo sum). We will see later how empiricists, especially Hume, reject the idea of ​​the self as an existing and differentiated entity, conceiving it as an amalgam of changing impressions without any type of specific identity.

Innate ideas versus tabula rasa

Since Plato, philosophy has recognized the existence of so-called “innate ideas”, that is, a series of concepts that live in us since we are born. This philosophy remained very valid during the Middle Ages, the Platonic era par excellence, until thinkers like Pedro Abelard questioned this idea through the discussion of “universals.”

The controversy was increased with the arrival in Europe, in the 13th century, of Aristotelian philosophy, because although Aristotle, as a disciple of Plato, 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 14th 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 forever ended 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, would follow in their footsteps and continue along the path of empiricism. , what has been called “English empiricism.” On the contrary, on the continent there was a proliferation of authors who adhered to Cartesian theories and therefore defended the existence of innate and the supremacy of reason over sensory experience, as well as the indisputable existence of the self. They are thinkers such as Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) or Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694), followers of “continental rationalism”, led, as we have already mentioned, by the eminent figure of René Descartes.

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 quite radical differentiation between the different substances or realities: on the one hand, there is the soul or mind, the spiritual entity that thinks and feels; on the other, the matter, the body, which is a mere extension of the first (res extenso). However, there would still be a third substance, infinite and eternal: God. By definition, If divinity is infinite, it means that both the thinking and the material substance are also part of it ; This is precisely what Spinoza called “the only substance”, which does not need anything to be.

According to Cartesian theory, the mind and 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.” There are, according to the thinker, numerous sensory errors that distort reality and, therefore, generate false knowledge. For example, if on a foggy day we thought we caught a glimpse of a person approaching along the path and it finally turned out to be a branch moved by the wind, wouldn’t our senses have deceived us? The self, 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 We have already commented previously that, by the way, it is not an original idea of ​​Descartes, since we find it in previous authors (at least outlined) such as Gómez Pereira (1500-1567) or Agustín de Hipona (354-430).

David Hume, the main thinker of the empiricist movement, 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 happen one after another, but it is not an entity with substance. By substance we understand the Aristotelian idea of ​​a concrete identity in time that defines an element, so, according to Hume’s theories, this could not apply to the self, since it is not constant or regular.

The existence of God

Hume distinguished the impression, which is what sensory perception produces in the present, from the idea, which is nothing other 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 sense perception can be considered true, since the self does not exist, and neither do innate ideas. It follows from this that God is, for the philosopher, a mere idea, which, furthermore, has no real basis, since it is not induced by a perception.

No one has seen, touched or heard God; at least, through the bodily senses which, remember, for Hume are the only ones valid for knowledge. Therefore, God does not exist. This is, in fact, one of the fiercest criticisms received by the work of the philosopher, 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 demonstrate 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 has endowed the human being with a body and a 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, because of 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 short analysis, we will briefly review what, in conclusion, are the main differences between empiricism and rationalism. Let’s see it.

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

Secondly, the belief in the existence of innate ideas. Empiricism rejects them categorically and defends the mind as a tabula rasa, which is filled based on experience. On the other hand, 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, connected to matter (the body) through the pineal gland. And finally, we find the existence of God. If Hume only considers truthful 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 rationalist followers of 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 him.