Empiricism & human knowledge Essay

Empiricism is a notion that is derived from epistemology studies in philosophy that is centered on nature and limitation of our human knowledge (Kenny 36). The proponents in empiricism school of thought assert that the main source of human knowledge is through our sensational experience. In other words, what a man may claim to know is purely from experience with environment (Kenny 218). However, approaching this argument holistically need to consider some fundamental questions that prove worth informing the argument: What is the nature of propositional knowledge? How can we gain knowledge? And what are the limits of our knowledge? These question though less informative and may not give the full parameters and modality of the argument, it help to move further and creates a well investigative argument. In this regard, the paper central thesis shall be: Does all our knowledge come from experience? If not, where does it come from? And how can we prove that as necessary truth? The question of human knowledge derivation in field of epistemology has been a controversial issue with both rationalists and empiricists pulling toward each others side. However, as the paper shall be concluding it shall be quite evident that no side can stand alone in the proving ground for human knowledge. Since upon exploring each side of the competing explanations, it comes out clearly that human experience is necessary component in attaining knowledge yet at the same time its insufficient condition that can facilitate knowledge gaining. Therefore, this validates the essence that empiricism can not be self explanatory subject content without input and insight from rationalism school of thought (Kenny 41). In regard to Philosophical argument of empiricism, two juxtaposing positions do assist to answer this question. I find it difficult to neither accept nor deny the fact that empiricists assert that our knowledge comes from our experience because we are born as a ‘tabula rasa’. This is the light that some phenomenon experience can not be affirmed by sense experience alone. For instance, when a blue candle is placed on the table and observes with eyes and affirmed that it is a candle since the sense tells and confirm its solid and hard; then when the same candle is placed close to the flame and melts down; using the same sight observation it is difficult to affirm that the liquefied wax is the same blue candle. Basing on this example, it becomes challenging to entrust the experience as a source of understanding that strange phenomenon that challenges our senses to derive knowledge (Bonjour 273). Therefore, in such case rationalist gain a score in the sense that is only through reason that the individual observing the instance can affirm that the liquid was is the same candle in liquid form. Contrary at the same time the knowledge of changing states of wax shall be gained through sight and not reason, though reason facilitate construction and conceptualization of such concept. Evidently the two competing positions have a problem. According to Aune’s (1970) presentation of Plato’s dialogue â€Å"meno† give me an interesting position in his attempt to support rationalism that instead gives insight to validity of empiricism. Plato gave an example aimed at asserting that he met a slave boy who had mathematical knowledge (basic arithmetic); this should be innate. This is because according to him, knowledge from reason is eternal and do not change while that fro experience does. Using that example it is not true that lack of mathematical knowledge to that slave boy validates lack of mathematical experience. This is in the sense that even abstract mathematical concepts are centered on real figures or objects that does exist. For instance, the relationship given by Pythagoras’ theorem is a proposition that expresses a relation between the sides of a right angled triangle. Thus, the knowledge of these kinds of propositions can be discovered purely by thinking but an individual must in his or her earlier stages of learning been exposed or seen the figure of a right angled triangle, which is something that actually exists in the universe. On the contrary, the propositional knowledge about relation of sides of height, base and hypotenuse can be discovered purely by thinking, without the need to attend to anything that actually exists in the universe. This implies that empiricism is the basis on which reason can advance the knowledge gained primary to other higher understanding forms in such arenas as the sciences of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic. On the other hand, matters of fact as a second category object of human reason cannot be established like matters of relations as individuals lack strong grounding to think them as true. Instead, the opposite of every matter of fact is possible since it does not imply a contradiction and is easily conceived by our minds. For example, saying â€Å"the sun will rise tomorrow† is logical and has no more contradictions to saying â€Å"the sun will not rise tomorrow†. Basically, saying that the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less logical a proposition and implies no more contradiction, than the assertion that it will rise. As a result, it will be futile to try and prove its falsehood. If it can be proven false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be clearly conceived by the mind. Thus, empiricism scores in knowledge that regards maters of fact as opposed to the knowledge of the relational of ideas. Human knowledge acquisition does not need prior reasoning to acquire, but comes from our experience of finding, connecting and inferring that particular objects are constantly associated with one other. For example, if a man is presented with an object that is new to him, no amount of reasoning about its perceptible qualities will enable him to discover it rather than observing, touching and smelling it so that he can conform to already formed knowledge base, or accommodate it as a new object discovered (Hume 173). If next time the same person comes into contact with this object again, thinking can help to connect the object to the past event and claim to know the object. This can be demonstrated by a stranger to fire and moving water; from the light and warmth of fire, one cannot assume that they can be burnt or cannot infer that the fluidity and transparency of water can drown him or her respectively. Thus, such knowledge can only be established if there are incidences that an individual was burnt by fire or drawn fast moving water, which forms the basis of knowledge which is taught. Based on this example, it follows that the qualities of an object that appear to the senses cannot reveal the causes or effect nor can reason, unaided by experience, ever draw any conclusion about real existence which constructs our knowledge. Consequently, it can be seen that experience enables us to know the cause-effect relation which enables us construct the knowledge base. For example, when burnt by fire, one will know its effect and when seeing someone light a fire, one will understand the cause. The reasoning faculty should be seen as the tool that aids in connecting past and present events and facilitate the making of inferences to already existing knowledge derived from experience. From the arguments it is however increased my difficult to neither assert nor deny the thoughts that emanate from empiricism school of thought. Thus, it is evident that experience is necessary to our knowledge acquisition but insufficient mechanism in knowledge gaining and application to different situation. It is in this line of thought that I assert that experience is truly a source of our knowledge for instance language acquisition which a basic foundation of other knowledge acquisition. In conclusion, from various argument discussed and exemplary illustrations the proposition that knowledge discoverable not by reason but by experience is true. Firstly, there are past examples of objects that were once unknown to us and from experience, we now know what would arise from those objects. This is totally in contrast to the objects we have never been in contact with. Secondly, events that are not much like the common course of nature are also known only by experience. For example, without prior knowledge, nobody could guess that magnets attract or gunpowder explodes. Thirdly, when an effect is believed to depend on a secret structure of parts, we tend to attribute all our knowledge of it to experience.Yet, we highly depend on the reason for the connecting, construction, affirming and making inferences. Work cited Aune, B. , Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An Introduction, New York: Random House, 1970. Bonjour, L. , In Defense of Pure Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Hume, D. , An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Indianapolis, Bobbs- Merrill, 1955 Kenny, A. , Rationalism, Empiricism and Idealism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.