Rationalism vs Empiricism

In Philosophy, there are two main positions about the source of all knowledge. These positions
are called rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists believe that all knowledge is innate, or is
there when one is born, and that learning comes from intuition. On the other hand,

Empiricists believe that all knowledge comes from direct sense experience. In this talk, I will try
to explain each position, its strengths and weaknesses, and how Kant discovered that there is an
alternative to these positions. The thesis I defend in this talk is that knowledge can be of both
positions.

According to Rationalists (such as Descartes), all knowledge must come from the mind.
Rationalism is concerned with absolute truths that are universal (such as logic and mathematics),
which is one of the strengths of this position. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is difficult to
apply rationalism to particulars (which are everywhere in our daily life!) because it is of such an
abstract nature.

According to Empiricists, such as John Locke, all knowledge comes from direct sense
experience. Lockes concept of knowledge comes from his belief that the mind is a blank slate
or tabula rosa at birth, and our experiences are written upon the slate. Therefore, there are no
innate experiences. The strength of the empiricist position is that it is best at explaining
particulars, which we encounter on a daily basis. The weakness of this position is that one cannot
have direct experiences of general concepts, since we only experience particulars.

Noticing that rationalism and empiricism have opposing strengths and weaknesses, Kant
attempted to bring the best of both positions together. In doing so he came up with a whole new
position, which I will soon explain.

Kant claimed that there are 3 types of knowledge. The first type of knowledge he called a
priori, which means prior to experience. This knowledge corresponds to rationalist thinking, in
that it holds knowledge to be independent of experience. A priori knowledge is also necessary
and universal, meaning it is true everywhere. Examples of a priori knowledge are concepts such
as space, time, and substance. Analytic statements (in which the predicate is included in the
definition of the subject) fall under this category as well, since they are always true. However,
Kant says they are trivially true because analytic statements tell us what we already know. For
example, the statement squares have four sides is analytic because it is true, but the fact that the
square has four sides is obvious because it is included in the definition of a square, so it is trivial.

Kant called the second type of knowledge a posteriori, which means after experience. A
posteriori knowledge corresponds to empiricist philosophy, since this knowledge is contingent
upon direct experience, which cannot be certain. A posteriori knowledge is associated with
1
 synthetic statements (where the predicate adds something to the subject), which give new
information, but is not necessary. An example of an a posteriori statement is the sweater is
green. Green is not an innate characteristic of sweaters, so a sweater of a different color is still a
sweater. In other words, the characteristic Green is not necessary in order for the sweater to be
considered a sweater.

Kant thought that if one can come up with a statement that is both necessary and synthetic, it
would not be trivial, yet it would still provide new information. So in combining the strengths of
a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge, Kant came up with synthetic a priori
statements.

Kant used a mathematical example to elaborate on synthetic apriori statements. The statement 7 +
5 = 12 is a simple mathematical problem that might mislead people into believing that it is an
analytical statement, since it deals with mathematic (which is a rational, universal concept). One
might assume that he knows the answer intuitively because he thought of the answer, 12, right
away. But the number 12 does not exist within the 7 or the 5 alone. One must apply the concept
of addition in order to reach the sum of twelve. Therefore, it is not analytical. It is much easier to
see when adding much larger numbers, such as 8557 and 23372067. If this were analytical, I
would be able to intuitively know the answer as easily as I came up with the answer 12 in the last
problem. However, since the answer is not contained within the numbers being summed, this
concept is synthetic and also gives new information.

In conclusion, Kant recognized the strengths and weaknesses associated with each type of
knowledge, and came up with a new type of knowledge that could rise above the weaknesses. In
other words, knowledge doesnt have to choose sides, it can be of both positions.

Mohamed Lachhab

English studies
S1, Group B