Name:

Date:
Professor:

MARIA EVA S. NACION

January 30, 2016
Dr. RAFAEL I. BALIGNASAY JR.

Written Report on Other Philosophical Perspectives: Objectivism, Empiricism, Rationalism,

Relativism

Objectivists say that human experiences play only a minor role in structuring the
world, as meaning is something that exists in the world quite aside from experience.
Consequently, knowledge is considered as existing externally and independent from the learner.
That means, it corresponds to the accurate representation of objectivistic reality. Thus, we can
conclude that the aim of learning is to acquire knowledge of objects, their characteristics and
interactions.
The Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand holds the same conviction. She
seems to be the only one to call herself an objectivist. She was the founder of the Philosophy of
Objectivism, which is based on fundamental statements on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics,
and politics. The following of her statements are useful for our purposes:
"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's
consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge,
beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that
facts are facts, that things are what they are - and that
the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to
create or invent it."
"Epistemology: 'Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts
of reality.
Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and
integrates
the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only
means of
acquiring knowledge.
Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth. The
reason why it is a philosophy for living on Earth is that its every principle
is derived from the observable facts of reality and the demonstrable
requirements of human life and happiness.

Objectivism is fully secular and absolutist; it is neither liberal nor

conservative nor anywhere in between. It recognizes and upholds the secular

(this-worldly) source and nature of moral principles and the secular moral
foundations of a fully free, fully civilized society.

Objectivism holds that reality is an absolutethat facts are facts,

regardless of anyones hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent
of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be
true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values,
and protecting our rights.

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest

virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and
self-responsibility.
Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to provide people with
principled guidance for living and achieving happiness on earth. The proper
standard of moral value is mans lifemeaning: the factual requirements of
his life as set by his nature. And because human beings are individuals, each
with his own body, his own mind, his own life, this standard pertains to
human beings as individuals (not as cogs in a utilitarian collective).
According to this principle, the good is that which supports or promotes an
individuals life; the evil is that which retards or destroys it. Being moral
consists in taking the actions necessary to sustain and further ones life
actions such as thinking rationally and planning for the future, being honest
and having integrity, producing goods or services and trading them with
others, judging people rationally (according to the relevant facts) and
treating them accordingly, and so on. In a word, Objectivism holds that being
moral consists in being rationally selfish or egoistic.
Rational egoism, the centrepiece of Objectivism, holds that each individual
should act in his own best interest and is the proper beneficiary of his own
moral action. This principle is the recognition of the fact that in order to live,
people must take self-interested action and reap the benefits thereof. Human
life requires egoism. (I use rational egoism and egoism interchangeably
for reasons that will become clear.)

Thus, Objectivism rejects the morality of altruismthe idea that being

moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others (whether the poor, the
common good, mother nature, or God). Objectivism also rejects the
idea that predationthe sacrificing of others for ones own alleged benefit
can promote ones life and happiness. And Objectivism rejects hedonism

the idea that being moral consists in acting in whatever manner gives one
pleasure (or doing whatever one feels like doing).

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial

progress, objective (as opposed to progressive or faith-based) education,
and romantic artand, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all
such values possible: reason.
Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalismthe
social system of individual rights and strictly limited governmentalong with
the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.
As a philosophical system, Objectivism includes a view of the nature of
reality, of mans means of knowledge, of mans nature and means of
survival, of a proper morality, of a proper social system, and of the nature
and value of art. Rand presented her philosophy in her many fiction and
nonfiction books, such as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Philosophy:
Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,
and The Romantic Manifesto.

Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined

by personal opinion or social convention or divine decree. An individuals
ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change
anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do
not. A person might think that the sun revolves around the earth (as some
people do); that does not make it so.
Objectivism holds that reasonthe faculty that operates by way of
observation and logicis mans means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge
by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on
the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with
reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking. This is
how scientists discover facts in their various fields, from the principles of
agriculture to the existence of atoms to the structure of DNA; it is how
inventors and engineers design life-enhancing machines and devices, from
automobiles to heart pumps to MP3 players; it is how businessmen establish
ways to produce and deliver goods and services, from refrigerators to movies
to wireless Internet access; it is how doctors diagnose and cure (or treat)
diseases, from polio to sickle cell anemia to breast cancer; it is how children
learn language, math, and manners; it is how philosophers discover the
nature of the universe, the nature of man, and the proper principles of
morality, politics, and aesthetics. Reason is the means by which everyone

learns about the world, himself, and his needs. Human knowledge
all human knowledgeis a product of perceptual observation and logical
inference there from.

Thus, Objectivism rejects all forms of mysticismthe idea that

knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory, nonrational means (such as
faith, intuition, ESP, or any other form of just knowing). Objectivism equally
rejects skepticismthe idea that knowledge is impossible, that it cannot be
acquired by any means. Man clearly can acquire knowledge, has done so,
and continues to do so; this is evident in the fact that he has accomplished
all that he has.
In short, man has a means of knowledge; it is reasonand
reason alone. If people want to know what is true or good or right, they must
observe reality and use logic.

Objectivism holds that man has free willthe ability to think or

not to think, to use reason or not to use it, to go by facts or to go by feelings.
A person does not have to use reason; the choice is his to make. Whatever
an individuals choice, however, the fact remains that man is the rational
animal; reason is his only means of knowledge and therefore his basic means
of survival. A person who refuses to use reason cannot live and flourish. Man
has free will, and this fact is what gives rise to his need of morality: a code of
values to guide his choices and actions.
Man survives by observing reality, identifying the nature of things,
discovering causal relationships, and making the logical connections
necessary to produce the things he needs in order to live. Insofar as a person
chooses to use reason, he is able to identify and pursue the things he needs
for survival and happinessthings such as knowledge, food, shelter, medical
care, art, recreation, romance, and freedom. Insofar as a person
does not choose to use reason, he is unable to identify or pursue these
requirements; he either dies or survives parasitically on the minds of those
who do choose to use reason. In any case, reason is mans basic means of
survival, and free willthe choice to use reason or notis the essence of his
nature.

Thus, Objectivism rejects the notion that mans nature is inherently

corrupt (i.e., the idea of original sin, or the Hobbesian view of man as a
brute), making his character necessarily depraved or barbaric. Objectivism

also rejects the idea that man has no nature at all (i.e., the twisted, modern
interpretation of man as a blank slate), making his character the
consequence of social forces, such as upbringing or economic conditions. A
persons character is neither inherently bad nor the product of social forces;
rather, it is a consequence of his choices. If an individual chooses to face
facts, to think rationally, to be productive, and so onand thereby develops
a good characterthat is his achievement. If an individual chooses not to
face facts, not to think, not to produce, and so onand thus develops a bad
characterthat is his fault.

Empiricism
Empiricism is an important part of the scientific method because
theories and hypotheses must be observed and tested to be considered
accurate. Empiricists tend to be sceptical that anything can be known for
certain, and therefore they tend not to believe in dogmas or absolute truths.
This is in contrast to rationalists, who tend to believe that the universe has
absolute laws that can be determined and that the human mind is naturally
predisposed to understanding certain truths.
Empiricism is a philosophical belief that states your knowledge of the
world is based on your experiences, particularly your sensory experiences.
According to empiricists, our learning is based on our observations and
perception; knowledge is not possible without experience.
Empiricism, in philosophy, view that all concepts originate in
experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be
experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are
justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords
with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek
word empeiria, experience.

Concepts are said to be a posteriori (Latin: from the latter) if they

can be applied only on the basis of experience, and they are called a priori
(from the former) if they can be applied independently of experience.
Empiricism is the philosophical stance according to which the
senses are
the
ultimate
source
of
human
knowledge.
It
rivals rationalism according to which reason is the ultimate source of

knowledge. In a form or another, empiricism is a chapter of most

philosophical tradition. In Western philosophy, empiricism boasts a long and
distinguished list of followers in all ages; probably the most fertile moment
for this trend happened during the early modernity, with the so-called British
empiricists, whose rank includes authors of the caliber of John Locke and
David Hume.
Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or
primarily from sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology,
the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and scepticism,
empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially
sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate
ideas or traditions; empiricists may argue however that traditions (or
customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence,

especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the
scientific
method that
all hypotheses and theories must
be
tested
against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a
priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricists claim that all ideas that a mind can entertain have been
formed through some experiences or to use a slightly more technical term
through some impressions; here is how David Hume expressed this creed:

"it must be someone impression that gives rise to every real idea"
(A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Section IV, Ch. vi). Indeed
Hume continues in Book II "all our ideas or more feeble perceptions
are
copies of our impressions or more lively ones".

Under this characterization, empiricism is the claim that all human

ideas are less detailed copies of some experience or other.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is

based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic,
subject to continued revision and falsification." One of the epistemological
tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method,
including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical
research.
There are three types of empiricism:
classical empiricism,

radical empiricism, and moderate empiricism.

Classical empiricism is based on the belief that there is no such

thing as innate or in-born knowledge. John Locke is one of the most wellknown empiricists; he claimed the mind is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, at
birth. Locke asserts that our experience of the world provides us with
knowledge.
Radical empiricism stems from the belief that our knowledge of the
world is based solely on our senses; if something is not experienced through
our senses, it does not exist according to radical empiricists. Radical
empiricists reject religious beliefs because such beliefs cannot be
investigated through the evidence of the senses.

Rationalism
Rationalism is a philosophical movement which gathered momentum
during the Age of Reason of the 17th Century. It is usually associated with
the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy during this
period by the major rationalist figures,Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza. The
preponderance of French Rationalists in the 18th Century Age of
Enlightenment, including Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles de
Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755), is often known
as French Rationalism.
Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive
reason (as opposed to sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the
source of knowledge or justification. Thus, it holds that some propositions

are knowable by us by intuition alone, while others are knowable by

being deduced through valid arguments from intuited propositions. It
relies on the idea that reality has a rational structure in that all aspects of
it can be grasped through mathematical and logical principles, and not
simply through sensory experience.
At its core, rationalism consists of three basic claims. For one to
consider a rationalist, they must adopt at least one of these three claims:
The Intuition/Deduction Thesis, The Innate Knowledge Thesis, or The Innate
Concept Thesis. In addition, rationalists can choose to adopt the claims of
Indispensability of Reason and or the Superiority of Reason although one
can be a rationalist without adopting either thesis.
Rationalists believe that, rather than being a "tabula rasa" to be
imprinted with sense data, the mind is structured by, and responds
to, mathematical methods of reasoning. Some of our knowledge or
the concepts we employ are part of our innate rational nature:
experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge
to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with
the knowledge itself, which has in some way been with us all along.
Rationalism is usually contrasted with Empiricism (the view that the
origin of all knowledge is sense experience and sensory perception), and
it is often referred to as Continental Rationalism because it was
predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas British
Empiricism dominated in Britain. However, the distinction between the two
is perhaps not as clear-cutas is sometimes suggested, and would probably
not have even been recognized by the philosophers involved. Although
Rationalists asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific
knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, they also
observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings, except in
specific areas such as mathematics.
The
roots of
Rationalism
may
go
back
to
the Eleatics and Pythagoreans of
ancient
Greece,
or
at
least
to Platonists and Neo-Platonists, the definitive formulation of the theory
had to wait until the 17th Century philosophers of the Age of Reason.
In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the
chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a
source of knowledge or justification".

More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in

which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual
and deductive". Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical
structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that
the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert
that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and
metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to
fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason
that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain
truth in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and
knowledge are gained independently of sense experience". Because of this
belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals.
In politics,
Rationalism,
since
the Enlightenment,
historically
emphasized
a
"politics
of
reason"
centered
upon rational
choice, utilitarianism, secularism,
and irreligion
the
latter
aspect's antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic
rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.
In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham noted how rationalism,
a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism: In the past,
particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term 'rationalist' was often
used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook, and
for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (thus in 1670
Sanderson spoke disparagingly of 'a mere rationalist, that is to say in plain
English an atheist of the late edition...'). The use of the label 'rationalist' to
characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is
becoming less popular today; terms like 'humanist' or 'materialist' seem
largely to have taken its place. But the old usage still survives.
Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range
of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has
precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme
position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". Given a pre-modern
understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy,
the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of
authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear
to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive
"Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of
reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. Rationalism should not be
confused with rationality, nor with rationalization.
Ren Descartes is one of the earliest and best known proponents of
Rationalism, which is often known as Cartesianism (and followers
of Descartes' formulation of Rationalism as Cartesians). He believed that

knowledge of eternal truths (e.g. mathematics and the epistemological and

metaphysical foundations of the sciences) could be attained by reason
alone, without the need for any sensory experience. Other knowledge (e.g.
the knowledge of physics), required experience of the world, aided by
the scientific method - a moderate rationalist position. For instance, his
famous dictum "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is a
conclusion reached a priori and not through an inference from
experience. Descartes held that some ideas (innate ideas) come from God;
others ideas are derived from sensory experience; and still others
are fictitious (or created by the imagination). Of these, the only ideas
which are certainly valid, according to Descartes, are those which are
innate.
Baruch
Spinoza expanded upon Descartes
basic
principles
of
Rationalism. His philosophy centred on several principles, most of which
relied on his notion that God is the only absolute substance (similar
to Descartes' conception of God), and that substance is composed of two
attributes, thought and extension. He believed that all aspects of
the natural world (including Man) were modes of the eternal substance of
God, and can therefore only be known through pure thought or reason.
Gottfried Leibniz attempted to rectify what he saw as some of
the problems that were not settled by Descartes by combining Descartes'
work with Aristotle's notion of form and his own conception of the universe
as
composed
of monads.
He
believed
that
ideas
exist
in
the intellect innately, but only in a virtual sense, and it is only when the
mind reflects on itself that those ideas are actualized.
Nicolas Malebranche is another well-known Rationalist, who attempted
to square the Rationalism of Ren Descartes with his strong Christian
convictions and his implicit acceptance of the teachings of St. Augustine.
He posited that although humans attain knowledge through ideas rather
than sensory perceptions, those ideas exist only in God, so that when we
access them intellectually, we apprehend objective truth. His views were
hotly contested by another Cartesian Rationalist and Jensenist Antoine
Arnauld (1612 - 1694), although mainly on theological grounds.
In the 18th Century, the great French rationalists of the Enlightenment (often known
as French Rationalism) include Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles de
Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755). These philosophers produced some of the

most powerful and influential political and philosophical writing in Western history, and had a
defining influence on the subsequent history of Western democracy and Liberalism.

Immanuel
Kant started
as
a traditional Rationalist,
having
studied Leibniz and Christian Wolf (1679 - 1754) but, after also studying
the empiricist David Hume's works; he developed a distinctive and
very influential Rationalism of his own, which attempted to synthesize the
traditional rationalist and empiricist traditions.
During the middle of the 20th Century there was a strong tradition
of organized Rationalism (represented in Britain by the Rationalist Press
Association, for example), which was particularly influenced by free
thinkers and intellectuals. However, Rationalism in this sense has little in
common with traditional Continental Rationalism, and is marked more by a
reliance on empirical science. It accepted the supremacy of reason but
insisted that the results be verifiable by experience and independent of
all arbitrary assumptions or authority.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts
and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists
claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and
knowledge.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue
that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge
outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they
construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that
additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary
lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the
information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place.
(Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if
experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite,
then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists'
accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.

Relativism
Relativism is
the
concept
that points
of
view have
no
absolute truth or validity within themselves, but they only have relative,
subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.
As moral relativism, the term is often used in the context of moral principles,
where principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited
context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of

controversy. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine
that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some
particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cultural
relativism).
Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and
wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of
differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority
is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, relativism
covers views which maintain thatat a high level of abstractionat least
some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally
good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given
framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards),
and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties
holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or
supplied. Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is
only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage
point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be
established.
Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular
and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. Defenders see it as a
harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of
the open-minded and tolerant. Detractors dismiss it for its alleged
incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. Debates about
relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines.
From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology,
theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond
to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. Discussions of relativism often
also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of
philosophy and to the division between the so-called analytic and
continental camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate
going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult
to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what
philosophical import it has. This entry attempts to provide a broad account of
the many ways in which relativism has been defined, explained, defended
and criticized.
He label relativism has been attached to a wide range of ideas and
positions which may explain the lack of consensus on how the term should
be defined. The profusion of the use of the term relativism in contemporary
philosophy means that there is no ready consensus on any one definition.
Here are three prominent, but not necessarily incompatible, approaches.

Relativism is everywhere. Although the list is certainly long, we'll

select some of the main manifestations of relativism within our society.
Objective relativism is the view that the beliefs of a person or group of
persons are ''true'' for them, but not necessarily for others. Ultimately, says
this brand of relativism, no truth is universally, objectively true or false. One
person's ''truth,'' which really amounts to opinion, can conflict with another's
''truth'' and still be valid. Objective relativism (also known as
''epistemological relativism'') challenges the very existence of how we know
what we know, our underlying assumptions, and the validity of our
knowledge.)
Religious relativism maintains that one religion can be true for one
person or culture but not for another. No religion, therefore, is universally or
exclusively true. Religious beliefs are simply an accident of birth: If a person
grows up in America, chances are good that he might become a Christian; if
in India, that he will be a Hindu; if in Saudi Arabia, that he will be a Muslim. If
what one believes is the product of historical happenstance, the argument
goes; no single religious belief can be universally or objectively true.
Moral relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no
objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are true - or ''genuine'' - for
some, but not for others. Since there are differing opinions of morality in the
world, there is no reason to think that one is any truer and objectively
binding than another. The implication is that statements of value (for
example, ''adultery is morally wrong'') can be true for some but false for
others. Something is wrong - sleeping with the boss, stealing paper clips, or
leaving work early - only if you think or feel it is wrong.
Cultural relativism says that what is immoral in our culture is not
necessarily immoral in another country. No one, therefore, can judge
another's moral values. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse illustrates this
view well. Ruse refers to the once widespread Indian practice of suttee, the
burning of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, which was later outlawed
by the British: ''Obviously, such a practice is totally alien to Western customs
and morality. In fact, we think that widow sacrifice is totally immoral.'' That
may be what Westeners think, yet Ruse says it is wrong to judge suttee as a
bad thing. Obviously, the same principle means we shouldn't condemn
slavery in America, genocide in Africa, or female infanticide in China.