A Look at Rationalism
November 26, 2016
Rationalism is the idea that people are born with an innate sense of reason. Rationalists argue against the “blank slate” theory of empiricism, which states that humans are born as a blank slate and gain all of their knowledge from experience. Rationalism argues that there are many senses such as morality, language, intuition, and a general sense of Human Nature, that humans are able to know or understand even without experience. Rationalists believe our sense of reason is what helps us determine the difference between appearance and reality (Lawhead, 2013). There is plenty of skepticism on whether we have souls that are separate from our body, or if our mind is a result of our brain. Because I believe in the possibility of our souls existing as something that does not die with the body, the rationalistic approach is one that appealed to me. Rationalism does not simply brush off the possibility of separate mind and body. While I don’t worship a God or participate in religious practice, I also believe that many things could exist that are far beyond human comprehension, including “beings” of a sort. Rationalism also acknowledges the possibilities of God.
Rene Descartes is considered the original of modern rationalism and believed that “reason could unlock the secrets of reality” (Lawhead, 2013). After spending some time delving into skepticism, he started to believe there was a possibility of a “Great Deceiver” that made all his beliefs uncertain. Though he doubted many things, he knew he could be certain that his mind existed, so he came up with a rationalistic approach from the contents of his own mind. One belief that Descartes wanted more certainty in was the existence of God, so he came up with an argument based on the statement that, “something cannot arise from nothing… and there must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect.” He constructed the argument that humans must have a reason for believing in God, and since we are not Godly or, as he put it “infinite and perfect,” then how could we, as imperfect, finite beings even cause the idea of a Godly being, unless, there were somehow part of that inside our minds. He also decided that if such a perfect God does exist, then this perfect being would not be deceptive, because that would be “morally imperfect.” Descartes addressed a basic concept of rationalism by stating that an idea must be innate if it is not something that comes from experience (Lawhead, 2013).
A reason that I think rationalism is a plausible theory is that I, myself, have had instances of intuition that I would best explain as an innate knowledge of some sort, like being able to sense the emotions of people I have never met. I have even more truths that are self-evident like the ideas of right and wrong. I cannot deny those gut feelings I have had that are clearly and obviously either moral or immoral, even when I have never experienced or witnessed them previously. Many times I have understood these feeling of “doing the right thing” or being just immoral, without any previous experience on the subject. The idea that humans are born with a sense of reason and innate knowledge would explain how people who grow up in terrible environments still manage to become something kind and genuinely good, because even if they were not taught or shown a sense of niceness as a child, they can still know what it is and how to do it, and that it is the right thing to do.
Another argument for rationalism is that our senses (which are what we use to take in and experience the experiences that our knowledge is claimed to be based on) can often deceive us or be confused. If one looks at a cup on a table from above, they will see a circle. If the same cup is viewed from that side, the cup is now a rectangle, and if viewed from far away, the cup would be a tiny dot. The way we see things does not always mean that’s exactly the way they are. In addition, no experience that we have can tell us that every experience like it will be exactly the same (Lawhead, 2013).
One common form of evidence used to support the idea of rationalism and to discredit empiricism is the psychology of children’s development. Empiricism can be disproved by the fact that humans have been found to be born with many innate traits. Children in all parts of the world have been found to have a sense for learning language, and not just one particular language, but they simply have a knack for the art of verbal communication. There is also the theory of circadian rhythms, which are part of our “biological clock.” If we are able to inherit these rhythms based on what our ancestors did, it does not seem unrealistic that we can inherit things such as “intuition” and a sense of moral value. In some ways, newborn babies are definitely a fresh and unknowing mind waiting to be molded, but psychology and biology have very convincing evidence that humans are born with certain knowledge in their DNA. A lot of this knowledge is thought to be a part of evolution, and improving our species over generations. This would mean that humans are not, in fact, born with a “tabula rasa,” or blank slate, as empiricism argues. Geneticists claim that all behavioral traits are partially heritable, which is called the First Law of Behavioral Genetics (Pinker, 2002).
Until there is a way to prove that a God doesn’t exist, or that we do not have souls, these ideas will not be dismissed by me. I feel as though it would be shallow and close-minded to insist that our species knows everything there is to know, and comprehends everything that exists. Descartes provides a legitimate argument that the innate sense of reason is part of us from the start. Philosophers have been debating these issues for a very long time, and still here is much to be learned. The rationalistic approach to this dilemma makes the most sense to me and still allows for humans to not be entirely “in the know.”
References:
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Harvard
University. Retrieved from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616s.pdf
Lawhead, W. (08/2013). The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach, 6th Edition.
[Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from:
Post a comment