Concerns And Differences Presented Between Rationalism – Empiricism

Concerns and differences presented between rationalism – Empiricism

A long time ago both rationalism and empiricism generate many concerns and open many questions against the complexity that has existed to give a clear explanation regarding the different positions that the different philosophers who have made part of these historiographic categories have had. It is interesting to know and deepen for our knowledge and clarity, the difference between empiricism and rationalism, so that we can analyze in detail the classification of these two categories that are part of the modern philosophical discourse. In this letter, we seek to investigate the two research issues, which have important matters of coincidence and concentration, such as speculative philosophy and experimental philosophy.

On the other hand, it is important to know, investigate and interpret about Hanson and Kuhn’s proposals. Likewise, interpret the position of critical rationalism, which is considered epistemologically as an empirical agreement and duty.

In accordance with the above, in the present work we seek to identify the differences and the different points of view presented between rationalism and empiricism.

Developing

After 1980, rationalism and empiricism have been issues of discussion and debate in front of some weaknesses found in.F. Norton (1981) and L. Loeb (1981) in these two historiographic constructions. After these arguments have been shown, the signs of dissatisfaction in these two categories were increased more, since they critically indicate that both rationalism and empiricism lack property, precision and accuracy, to explain each of the positions and conceptual relationships, that philosophers always had, which were part of these two historiographic constructions.

Different authors accept that these two categories have a positive pedagogical value, although Rationalism-Empirism is considered as not competent to deepen modern philosophy. That is, for these authors and with the respective modifications, these historiographic constructions can still be used in teaching philosophy. The discussion issues about the distinction Racinalism-Empirismo continue among the "appropriationist" and "contextualists".

Some authors with a more similar approach indicated that the distinction between rationalism and empiricism finds its foundation in the last quarter of the 18th century.

The studies carried out by Anstey (2005), indicate that the natural philosophers gathered in the British environment, agreed a distinction between speculative philosophy and experimental philosophy, which allowed them to identify themselves and also be able to criticize others. Taking into account this historical environment and according to Anstey, speculative philosophy makes explanations of natural phenomena without taking into account observation and experimentation. In the case of experimental philosophy, select and organize the observations made and their respective experimental supports, always seeking to deliver the explanations of natural phenomena based on their study supports.

Degérando performs a critical analysis, where he indicates that empiricists or sensualists consider that the principles are in the "impressions of the senses", while the rationalists think that they are found in the "deductions of reason".

The principle of empiricism to be accepted or rejected, must always be decided by observation and experiment, that is, the result of these studies. Hanson highlights his proposal against vision based on interpretation "Theories and interpretations are there, in the vision, from the beginning" (Hanson 87). Hanson considers that observation and interpretation becomes only one, it is for this reason that the nature of each observation becomes an interpretive.

In the case of Kunh, the handling of experience is changing according to the interpretation made by whoever observes. Thinking that it is seen first and then interpreted, makes it interested in modern epistemological tradition.

The autonomous activity of consciousness allows the origin of knowledge. The previous one is the Popperina proposal, which emphasizes and defends Popper, for being for him, the rationalist vein.

After the Renaissance, there are two positions that influence philosophy: empiricism and rationalism: empiricism bases its epistemological position and is characterized, since it does not allow another means of knowledge other than experience. It also considers that knowledge is the product of sensory appreciation. In the case of rationalism, it is based on reason, since it is the only human capacity that knowledge can achieve indicating that consciousness contains ideas to support it. Likewise, rationalism states that knowledge is based on rational reflection.

One of the most discussed issues against rationalism and empiricism are the synthetic propositions a priori, of which Kant believed considerably in this existence. From this position, the theme divides philosophers into two large fields: Rationalist believers in which there are synthetic propositions a priori and empiricist philosophers, which do not accept that there are synthetic propositions a priori. "According to Kant, the reality is observed through sensory data, which are ordered by the mind".

The current rationalists do not work on Kant’s theory, to show their thesis. They show as examples of synthetic propositions a priori the propositions of mathematics, chemistry and logic. In the case of current empiricists, they do not agree that these propositions are synthetic.

Conclusions

It is clear that the differences and oppositions found between empiricism and rationalism is one of the different distinctions that occurred in all philosophical doctrines during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These divisions were part of the three great schools that stood out in modern philosophy.

We can conclude that Hanson and Kuhn’s proposals emphasize that the interpretation of nature must become the same experience. Popper in his critical rationalism, shows the interpretation as a piece that attaches to what is given by the empirical base, which stands out his empiricist cut commitment. We can say that, if the experience begins from previous knowledge, it is considered modifiable, therefore, no method of formal mechanisms can talk about it.