Scribd
Upload
7 views2 pages

Rationalism Vs Empricism

The document discusses the distinction between rationalism and empiricism, tracing its roots back to philosophers like Parmenides and Hegel. It highlights the contrasting views on knowledge, where rationalism prioritizes logical reasoning over sensory perception, while empiricism relies on observable evidence. The text concludes that most scholars blend both approaches, as the divide lies more in the conclusion process than in forming hypotheses.

Uploaded by

bitreesjafri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views2 pages

Rationalism Vs Empricism

The document discusses the distinction between rationalism and empiricism, tracing its roots back to philosophers like Parmenides and Hegel. It highlights the contrasting views on knowledge, where rationalism prioritizes logical reasoning over sensory perception, while empiricism relies on observable evidence. The text concludes that most scholars blend both approaches, as the divide lies more in the conclusion process than in forming hypotheses.

Uploaded by

bitreesjafri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The rationalism- empiricism distinction has troubled many from amateurs to senior students

of philosophy of social sciences in particular among others. What would be better place to
begin our investigation than tracing the roots of the rationalistic tradition itself? Although,
Milesians from Thales to Heraclitus had used Logical deduction as their primary source of
reaching conclusions, albeit to different extents, with amalgamation of observations,
Parmenides’ take really put empiricism and rationalism in a clear contrasting light.

He, in a bid to redeem monism while upholding logical consistency, posited that there was no
change. This was preposterous to a lay man. Since the world clearly looks a place of many
things, that changes and is in motion. Reaching such a drastic conclusion in contradiction to
common sense was what clearly defined rationalism for ages to come. It was a belief in
reason as a superior instrument to sense perception. Underpinning the stated, Parmenides
remarked that only real was what could be thought and spoken of. Hegel, following identical
lines, opined: “real is rational and the rational is real”.

The definition of reality to a plain man, was however, very different. It was what his eyes
saw, what he could touch, hear and in cases, smell. Which came to be termed as empiricism.
He does not deny that it might, at times, be a fallacious perception but he could verify it by
trusting the observations of other men. And the similar fail-safe character could be attributed
to reasoning. As succession of the Monist argument and evolution of virtually all other
arguments exhibited, falling back upon the collective reason was the corrective method and
insurance against fallacy that rationalism used. One could argue that safeguards against
fallacies in rational school were independent of time and place. Whereas, the plain man’s
observations, even by collective, were restrained by place and time. And if it were to be
performed or observed in a controlled environment i.e. lab as scientific method would offer
later on, it severely reduced the application of reaching to assertions or conclusions from
hypothesis, to only particulars. Unlike universal and necessary assertions reached by
reasoning. An intriguing pursuit nonetheless, Immersing further into this discussion risks
digressing from the original topic of inquiry.

Parmenides’ position on “what is” and “ what is knowledge” was undergirded by his meta-
assumptions that the world must be knowable, since to believe otherwise is an abyss and
making this assumption, even if wrong, would not mean losing much if opposite were to be
the case. And that the ultimate knowledge could be reached by being logically consistent
which doesn’t need any testing or empirical verification (is a priori or self-evident). It is to be
noted that he did not reject knowledge though observations entirely but he seems to believe
that senses could betray and hence reasoning faculty of mind should be preferred over it.
Another matter of concern that confounds readers is the problem of defining empiricism as
the observations from sensory organs. One could argue and rightly so that observations could
play or do play a role in putting together even an intuitive hypothesis or assumptions.(as in
the case of posteriori arguments). Here, it should be noted that, the pertinent divide between
the two schools appears from difference on the process of reaching conclusion from
hypothesis, not on the process of forming hypothesis or assumptions. Owing to the same,
most scholars use both methods in varying compositions and rarely would any claim to be
purely rationalist or empiricist.

You might also like