The historically, philosophy has included some of the best minds the world has known, including Rene Descartes and David Hume. Hume’s insisted that “our knowledge of facts about the world is based ultimately on experience” (Daniel, 2013). In contrast, Descartes bases his conclusions, not solely on empirical data, as does Hume, but on a combination of “rational principles, such as symmetry and economy, in addition to empirical data, in formulating his mechanical theories” (Johns, 2013). While it may seem like empiricism is the way to go for scientific extrapolation, it is Descartes method that proves to be more compelling.
Natural inclinations, about the cause and the self, are unable to be “empirically justified,” but in spite of this, it does not mean that these topics lack any form of philosophical respectability (Daniel, 2013), and in fact, it must be argued that natural inclinations often play a key role in philosophy and philosophical studies. In addition, “even if the self and cause cannot be known, they must be presumed to make sense of experience” (Daniel, 2013), otherwise individuals, regardless of whether or not they know the cause or know the self, would be unable to extrapolate information based upon past experiences.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Empiricism in Philosophy".
Through the application of rationalism and empiricism, Descartes was able to reach greats unheard of by Hume. From the law of refraction, the slingshot argument, the collision law, mathematics, physics, to philosophy (Johns, 2013), Descartes was able to, through the process of disproving all that he learned in school, to become one of the most well-known minds of our time. By understanding the ways in which their methods differ, it is possible to see why and how Descartes is able to come out on top.
The flexibility and versatility of language allows human beings to do much more than order and make sense of the external world. It also provides a cognitive framework through which people may reflect on that which happens internally, and on one’s perception of oneself. In Interpersonal Communication, Julia Wood explains the dichotomy between the internal “I” and “me.” The I is the ego-driven element of the individual’s psychological make-up, the element of identity that seeks to satisfy desires and perceived needs. The me, on the other hand, is socially conscious. As such, it “reflects on the I by analyzing the I’s actions. This means we can think about who we want to be and set goals for becoming the self we desire” (Wood, 106). Because the me can feel remorse, joy or gratification, it is capable of modifying the I’s actions in order to achieve an acceptable behavioral mean (106). Language enables this self-modifying process to take place by organizing our understanding of behavior into categories, or norms that we identify with both good and bad social actions/decisions.
Organizing perceptions is a function of utilizing symbols, which enables individuals to make sense and classify experience. Language gives meaning to these symbols, allowing us to be discriminating in our decisions and behavior. Experience provides the backdrop against which we identify these linguistic markers. For instance, “An insult is likely to be viewed as teasing if made by a friend but a call to battle if made by an enemy. The words don’t change, but their meaning varies depending on how we organize our perceptions of words and those who speak them” (Wood, 106). Thus, words are associated with meaning through the medium of language, and given context through the prism of personal experience, whether that experience was positive or negative.
Symbols are also significant when it comes to hypothetical thought. Symbols enable people to think and reflect in ways that transcend time and place, to “contemplate things that currently have no real existence, and we can remember ourselves in the past and project ourselves into the future” (Wood, 106). It is in the way of dreaming, of imagining possibilities for oneself that are not constrained by reality. Some have labeled this as self-actualization, the phenomenon in which a person sees him or herself accomplishing a goal by doing something that will lead to the achievement of that goal. Language creates symbols that represent what that accomplishment means. These have very positive categorical associations for the individual and, consequently, will help motivate the individual to work hard to reach the goal in question. Experience, gained through time, helps the individual think hypothetically and without temporal constraints through the medium of language.
These contemplations lead to the conclusion that there is an inextricable connection between language and perception, language being the major normalizing factor in the realm of human experience (Law, 13). Language and perception are connected because, “in ‘seeing,’ we convert raw optical sensations into normative perceptions, and language is not only an exemplary but in fact the chief normalizing factor in human experience” (13). In other words, we “see” reality through language, which provides names, concepts, shapes, colors, etc., visual/perceptive cues that are presented to our perception as “nameable objects” (13). It is a profoundly interpretive phenomenon without which human society itself could not have evolved as it has over the centuries.
- Daniel, S. “Empiricism: Hume & Positivism.” Empiricism: Hume & Positivism. TAMU, 2013. Web. 05 Sept. 2013. http://philosophy.tamu.edu
- Johns, R. “Descartes and Rationalism.” Descartes and Rationalism. UBC, 2013. Web. 5 Sept. 2013. http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/
