Rationalism vs Empiricism in Ancient Philosophy
This page delves into the fundamental debate between rationalism and empiricism in ancient philosophy, focusing on the contrasting views of Plato and Aristotle. It also touches upon later philosophers like Descartes and Hume to illustrate the ongoing nature of this philosophical divide.
Plato, representing the rationalist perspective, argued for the existence of a priori knowledge that provides certainty in mathematics and our experiences. He believed that we are born with innate knowledge that we simply need to remember, a concept known as anamnesis.
Highlight: Plato's theory suggests that knowledge is lost at birth and must be regained through philosophical inquiry.
Aristotle, in contrast, championed empiricism, asserting that a posteriori knowledge derived from sensory experience is more useful. He argued that we cannot have thoughts about things without first experiencing them through our senses.
Example: Aristotle would argue that our understanding of concepts like color or sound is impossible without sensory experience.
The page also introduces the perspectives of later philosophers:
• Descartes' Wax Example supports rationalism by demonstrating how reason can identify an object even when its sensory properties change.
• Hume's empiricist stance argues that all contents of the mind come from impressions (experiences) and that we cannot conceive of things we have never experienced.
Quote: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he's not the same man" - Heraclitus
This quote illustrates the constant flux of experience that empiricists emphasize.
Vocabulary:
- A priori: Knowledge that is independent of experience
- A posteriori: Knowledge that is dependent on experience
- Rationalism: The theory that reason is the primary source of knowledge
- Empiricism: The theory that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge
The page concludes with a comparison of the Form of the Good and the Prime Mover, highlighting their similarities as perfect, necessary beings responsible for existence, albeit indirectly.
