An Assessment of Rationalism and Empiricism
Rationalism
I. Positive Evaluation
A. Rationalists point out that from a very few intuitively known mathematical theorems, reason can derive a body of theorems that amazingly hold true in our exploration of the physical world. How can one account for this correlation between what the mind rationally proves and what we observe in experience?
B. The Rationalists claim that without reason, experience would be a kaleidoscope of sights, sounds, tastes, odors, and textures without any intelligibility.
C. The Rationalists claim that we could never prove the laws of logic since all proofs assume them. The impossibility of proving the laws of logic indicate that we must know certain truths innately before we can gain any knowledge at all.
D. Hume would say "There are no logically necessary truths about the world." Isn't this assertion itself based on logic? If this claim is not a logically necessary truth than how can experience ever reveal its truth to us? If so, are the rationalists right that reason can give us knowledge about the world?
E. John Locke argued that experience alone must tell us about the nature of reality. But how can we ever know if our beliefs are true since we cannot jump outside our experience to compare it with reality? Again, does the rationalists have advantages over seeing the mind solely through the lens of empirical experience?
II. Negative Evaluation
A. Rationalists claim that the fundamental truths abou ...