The driving question behind this piece is: To what extent can we have knowledge? This is one of the fundamental questions of epistemology, the study
of knowledge. To answer this, we must first determine what constitutes knowledge. Knowledge is commonly accepted as a true justified belief. Most
things we say we “know” are actually just beliefs or justified beliefs because the criteria for something being true is very strict. Rationalists
believe we can have knowledge of the true nature of reality primarily through a priori thought and reason. Empiricists say experience is the source of
all knowledge, and that this physical reality is the only reality. Before you read on, ask yourself, where do you stand? Are you a Rationalist or an
Empiricist, something in between, or something completely different?
If you are reading this, chances are you are skeptical in some way of the world we live in. There are many things in this world to question, ranging
from our government’s intentions to religious beliefs to the reliability of our senses to perceive physical reality. This skepticism has led people
to several views of knowledge and existence, two of which are Rationalism and Empiricism.
Rationalism was prominent during the Enlightenment, most famously supported by Descartes. Over the past few centuries the general trend in philosophy
has been to go from a Rationalist-dominated field to an empiricist-dominated field. A big reason why is there has been a multitude of technological
advances since the Enlightenment. These advances have changed our worldview to make us more confident in our understanding of the world around us.
These technological advances, in conjunction with advances in logic and theoretical physics, have planted the idea in the modern philosopher’s head
that he can know more about the true nature of reality than Rationalists could during the Enlightenment.
I do not buy it.
The Trend Towards Empiricism
The fact is the modern human mind is essentially the same as it was during the Enlightenment. In the modern age we have more information, but we do
not have more knowledge. Information is made up of various forms of empirical data ranging from beliefs to statistics to theories. However, having
more information does not constitute having more knowledge. Commonly accepted criteria for something to be knowledge is it is a true justified belief.
In order to fulfill the criteria for being true, it cannot be doubted. Everything in the field of science is based on inductive reasoning…
experiments are conducted to establish scientific theories and laws that have a high probability of being true. However, any conclusions based on
inductive reasoning cannot fulfill the “true” criteria for knowledge, only conclusions based on deductive reasoning can.
For example, we have significant physical evidence that points to the fact that evolution is true. We have information on genetic mutations, fossils,
and live ecosystems that all seem to point to evolution being true. However, through science we have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is true
through induction… in other words, there is always a possibility that evolution is not true. For all we know the Bible’s creation story could be
true and the Earth could be only 5000 years old… or maybe all of these different kinds of living things have always existed and never actually had
to evolve into what they are now. What we claim to know about our past could simply be an illusion, just like our physical reality could very well be
an illusion because our senses can deceive us.
The Basics of Rationalism
Unlike Empiricists, Rationalists discover truths about the nature of existence through introspection and deductive reasoning. Rationalists use
introspection to tap into our pool of a priori knowledge. This a priori knowledge is knowledge that is accessible to all people once they are properly
trained and educated. Notice, to attain knowledge it is required to use deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, because there is always an
element of doubt in inductive reasoning.
Descartes famously used reason to tap into his a priori knowledge when he said “I think, therefore I am.” What he meant by this is a man’s
existence is logically deduced from the fact that he thinks.
After this initial deduction Descartes got ahead of himself while pursuing his goal of uniting Christian faith and reason. He claimed to know certain
aspects of the will of God, when in reality it is impossible to use this claim for deductive reasoning. He claimed to know the will of God through the
Bible, but the Bible is only a physical entity, so really he was only inductively reasoning about God’s will, but convinced himself he was using
Partially as a result of Descartes’ misguided deductions following his first initial deduction, philosophers and scientists passed over Descartes’
Rationalism thinking that science held the answers to the true nature of reality. People have taken Descartes’ initial discovery as a stroke of
genius, and then continued on with their own beliefs in science and Empiricism, not realizing what the implications of Descartes’ discovery really
Just because Descartes failed to properly follow his Rational method, that does not mean Rationalism is not viable. I don’t know if the pattern is
different here on ATS, but in my personal life I have never met another fellow Rationalist. I have met many Empiricists and many people with
incoherent beliefs, and a few Constructivists and Skeptics, but never a Rationalist.
If we continue Descartes’ deductions from where he left off, we can know more about the true nature of reality than 500 years of scientific
discovery can tell us… because no matter how far we get with science, it is still an Empiricist method, and only uses inductive reasoning.
I am working on some Rational deductions starting from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” My method is a combination of logical reasoning
and introspection. Here is a short preview:
1) I think therefore I am
1.1) What I perceive of the world may be real or it may be an illusion
1.2) Either way, the world around me exists
1.21) The real world exists
1.22) Illusions also exist, they just aren’t real
1.221) Similarly, imaginary numbers exist in Math, they just aren’t real
1.3) The only thing that doesn’t exist is nothingness
What you will notice about the true nature of reality is there is not a lot we can actually know. It is the job of a Rationalist to discover what we
can and cannot know. As a Rationalist, I don't delude myself into believing I know more than I can know.
You'll also notice that science and Rationalism are not entirely compatible. A Rationalist may study science, but he will know that science cannot
tell him about the true nature of reality, only about the nature of physical reality. In the pursuit of true knowledge, Rationalism is more compatible
with Eastern methods of thought which focus on introspection and contemplation.
The nature of our reality is that there is a massive realm of possibility that we can never comprehend. Empiricists ignore this facet of the nature of
reality, insisting the physical world is all there is, and that there is no need to consider the realm of possibility. Does that not raise a red flag
for anyone else?
edit on 5-3-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret