Turhan Uludag

002729

ENG 346

Dr. John Wall

Empiricism and Rationalism: Descartes, Locke and Kant

Descartes, in his famous book, Discourse on Method and on the Meditations develops a complete set of

philosophy which has its own rules, and by implication, is different from its predecessors. In this book, he

argues that the quest to truth or knowledge can only be obtained by “reason”, without demanding any

knowledge from sensory experience. Descartes takes it for granted that sense experience is not a valid system of

belief in arriving at truth, but the faculty of reason is. In this essay, it will become clear that it is not only our

reason that is essential, but empirical knowledge too. Therefore, to support this point, the philosophy of

Immanuel Kant will be connected to Descartes view on epistemology (the scope and the validity of knowledge),

God, and life.

It should be clear to the reader that Descartes is a rationalist philosopher and hence acknowledges that

human beings, when they are born, are born with innate ideas, which, presumably are given to us either from

God or from our parents. On the other hand, however, empiricists, such as John Locke, which opposes this

theory denies the concept of innate ideas; and claims that human beings’ mind is like a blank state (tabula rasa)

when they are born, and as they experience the world, they learn and function according to their experiences.

What does Descartes discuss in the Discourses? First, doubts everything which hitherto affected his

perception; accepts the existence of God; believes that the mind and body are two different entities; the falsity of

sensory experience; and finally, the indifferentiation, or rather, the connection between the dream world and the

real world. But most importantly, summarizes his philosophy in three words: I think, therefore, I am.

What does cogito ergo sum actually mean? If a subject, or anything, recognizes at first that he/she is

thinking, they are, as a necessary consequence, existing. By implication, Descartes emphasizes the priority of

mental existence rather than material existence. That is why he writes in the following lines, when he is

distinguishing between body and mind:

…in order to exist, [one] needs no place and depends on no material thing; so that this ‘I’, that is to say,

the mind, by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body, and moreover, that even if the

body were not, it would [the mind] not cease to be all that it is. (Discourse, 54)

How can the mind of a subject exist without the body? I think, what Descartes here attempts to

illustrate is the significance of mind over body and how the mind rules the body and that consequently body is
 Uludag / 2

inferior. But to indulge oneself into these mysteries does not represent the reality as we experience it and

because he does not believe in the importance of experience, he denies the materiality of human subject. Karl

Marx would have probably argued otherwise because our only being in the world is apparent through the

function of our material existence. Furthermore, Jean-Paul Sartre would also have rejected this belief on the

superiority of the mind because since existence comes first—which, in this case, is the material subject—then,

the mind, or the essence of the person is created.

Where does knowledge come from? Is it what rationalists argue which is a priori—knowledge that is

before experience—or, as empiricists argue a posteriori—which comes after experience. Descartes obviously

rejects the validity of sensory experience, he believes in the power of reason. Locke, on the other hand, holds

that there can be nothing known other than what experience can give you. Kant though, accepts that knowledge

starts with experience but does not believe that they all arise from experience:

That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. In respect of time, therefore, no

knowledge of ours is antecedent [comes before] to experience, but begins with it […] But, though all

our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience…

(Pojman, 140)1

The above quote clearly exemplifies the complementary nature of empiricism and rationalism. That is,

knowledge does start by experience but it does not originate by it. Thus, to take a single side on commenting on

the nature of knowledge is maybe fallacious; one must also see and understand the opposing argument. Since

both Descartes and Locke belong to two different philosophical doctrine, which both of them have extreme

views on this subject, they should not avoid the paradoxical nature of knowledge. Maybe, Descartes is right;

everything does come from birth and that experience only makes us remember things. Or, maybe Locke is right,

everything is based and derived from experience; even the concept of reason is based and affected by one’s

experience.

“I think, therefore, I am”. Is the act of thinking which is something which one has shaped and

improved through out of experience, or did come prior to experience? Can everybody think? Perhaps—actually,

no. Or, not in the way everybody else does. That is, idiots cannot think the same as other people.

Then, one must understand and accept the importance of experience because from birth people are not always

bestowed by prior knowledge, which will, in future, make them philosophers. It can be argued, therefore, that

the function of reason is shaped and created and formulated and recognized only by experience, nothing else.

Another weakness in Descartes’ argument can be the argument for the existence of God. He believes

that God is perfect, virtuous and all-powerful; and because we are imperfect, he must be a supreme being which
 Uludag / 3

must possess perfection. He goes on to arguing that if he is not perfect, then how was it ever possible that the

idea of perfection would be in our head? This is the simplest reason that Descartes assumes for the existence of

a God. A possible objection to this kind of approach would be from athesists, or agnostics for instance, which is

the problem of evil. If God is all loving and good, why is/does the idea of evil exist in the world?

Neither in God nor in anything else is existence a perfection, but rather that without which there are no

perfections…Existence cannot be said to exist in a thing like a perfection; and if a thing lacks

existence, then it is not just imperfect or lacking perfection; it is nothing at all.2

This quote argues however that if a thing lacks existence, that thing can never be perfect because it is

not even imperfect yet; and in order for it to be imperfect, it has to start to exist. This can be considered an

existential version of the existence of God since most philosophers deny the existence of God simply on the

basis that it does not exist, as the very word existentialism indicates. Locke would have argued that if a person

believes in God, that person would reason from empirical truths to the existence of God, not vice-versa. If one

wants to go back to the first cause of things, one cannot stop in God and say this is the unmoved mover which

moves everything; uncreated creator which creates everything because there is always the possibility of the

extension of God, as David Hume believes it to be so.

What about the distinction between dream world and reality? In this area, Descartes has a strong

argument because he believes that the dream world is as real as the real world:

…considering that all the same thoughts that we have when we are awake can also come to us when

we are asleep, without any one of them then being true, I resolved to pretend that nothing which had

ever entered my mind was any more true than the illusions of my dreams. (Discourse, 53)

He mentions above that the thoughts that come to us either when we are awake or asleep are

indistinguishable from dream or real world because they can be the same thoughts and hence can be inseparable

from each other. And if you are thinking about a thought, Descartes argues that it is simply impossible to be sure

if you are asleep or awake because it is hard to find out. Or, in both realities, we believe in the authenticity of the

events same as in the other world. Perhaps, they are combined together to form a whole reality which will come

after life.

For Descartes, a human being is a thinking substance. In the tradition of Aristotle, a human is

essentially a composite of soul and body; disembodied existence, if possible at all, is a maimed and

incomplete human existence. For Descartes, man’s whole essence is mind. In the present life our

minds are intimately united with our bodies but it is not our bodies that make us what we really are.

(Oxford, 113)
 Uludag / 4

This quote kind of summarizes Descartes philosophy. He certifies that man’s whole essence is derived from

birth and that if a person does not have the necessary qualities of being what she/he wants to be, that person will

never be able to be that person, no matter how hard they try. Perhaps. The problem with that argument is that the

mystery of birth knowledge. Since it is not evidenced; it can never be self-evident.

Descartes made an illuminative contribution to the development in philosophy, epistemology,

mathematics and science. He was not just a philosopher but many other things. He always wanted to combine

other areas of study to ascertain things’ certainty, if they ever existed. And above all, he valued the human mind,

which was the source of “reason” than anything else in the world that ever existed because material things are

temporary but mental awareness is perpetual.

To be persuaded by any of the arguments (empiricism and rationalism) is simply not easy,

perhaps. Because all philosophers base their philosophy on hypothetical assumptions, it is hard to accept their

system of belief just in one go. It seems however that the a priori knowledge is what we are searching for. And

if we find that, probably the real truth will become clear. Knowledge of a posteriori does not seem to do us any

good because no one ever discovered the nature of reality. But hopelessly, and if Kant is right, the only way to

reach a priori knowledge is through the use of experience.

 1
End Notes
The writer of this text recognizes that the author of these lines is written by Immanuel Kant. The only difference is
that he is quoting from an anthology of philosophical essays, it was appropriate to address the quote with the proper citation,
which will be apparent in the works cited page.
2
The Oxford History of Western Philosophy, hereafter cited in text as (Oxford)
 Works Cited

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method and the Meditations. Trans. F.E. Sutcliffe. London: Penguin, 1968.

Kenny, Anthony. Ed. The Oxford History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. England: Penguin, 1987.

Pojman, P. Louis. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. California: Wadsworth,

1991.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Pocket, 1956.

White, I Thomas. Discovering Philosophy. USA: Prentice Hall, 1996.