Rationalism vs. Empiricism

                Rationalists and Empiricists are two different forms of philosophy that came about in Ancient Greece and is still both are used in the Enlightenment. Rationalism came first followed by Empiricism. Both sides have their main representatives. For rationalism we have Spinoza and Descartes. For empiricism we have Hume, Locke and Berkeley. Rationalism and Empiricism can be considered as binary opposites.

                Rationalists, Spinoza and Descartes, had their differences but both used their reason to come to their conclusions. Descartes was a system-builder, who doubted everything except that he was real/existing because as he said, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes also separated the mind and body and said that God must exist because humans can think of a perfect being and only a perfect being can place that thought in human brains/thought.  Spinoza had no separation between mind and body and he was a pantheist, where he believed that everything was in God and God was in everything. He also had a perspective of eternity.

                Empiricists, Hume, Locke, and Berkeley, also had their differences but used their senses to come to come to conclusions. Hume believed in impressions and ideas, he thought people needed to sharpen their awareness and he used is senses to conclude. Locke said concepts are formed through the senses and he believed in sensations and ideas. Berkeley said that all we perceive is made of God, and the only things that exist are those things which we perceive. He also said that we do not perceive ‘material’ or ‘matter.’

               

Rationalists come to their conclusions through thought and reasoning, they do not rely on their senses, solely on reason. They say “essence precedes existence,” meaning that the idea or what the thing is made of, comes before its existence. A lot of physicians and mathematicians are considered rationalists, like Einstein. Empiricists, however, come to their conclusions using their senses and/or emotions/sentiments. They say “existence precedes essence,” meaning that a thing must exist before the idea or what it is made of. Experimental scientists are considered empiricist because of using experience/experiments/senses.

                In conclusion, rationalists and empiricists differ in their beliefs and philosophizing methods. So, what motivates you more: universal principles or senses/emotions/sentiments? I would say my emotions motivate me more, because it is more individual and relates to me, some things I may want to do because I enjoy them, I’m not going to do something I don’t like, even though someone else may like what I dislike. Also, a universal principle may change and when put into a situation I might not think of a principle (right or wrong) I’ll just act based on my feelings. Thirdly, as I grow older, my emotions/sentiments/senses can change, as well as how I feel/believe in a universal principle. I do think that for me a universal principle may motivate me, but as using the adjective ‘more.’ I’d say my senses/emotions/sentiments do. This thought makes me more empiricist than rationalist, for my senses or emotions would motivate me more than my reason or universal principles.