Rationalism - Religion-wiki
In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to be able to rightly say that a fact is "known" to be true (beyond a reasonable doubt). At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology). Rationalism should not be confused with rationalization.
Rationalism is often incorrectly contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist. The empiricist view holds that beliefs are only justified if they come to us through experience, either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. But empiricism does not claim that those beliefs are known beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore does not conflict with rationalism. The distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved.
Empiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate that "collection of atoms" to one's own ends. On the surface of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition. (Just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen").
Clearly, being "made of" something is not the same as "being" something. But this brings us to an even deeper issue. What does it mean to "be" something? In the purely empirical world view it doesnt mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels. This is, quite obviously, confusion. Words are categories and the phenomenon of Convergent evolution clearly shows that those categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.
There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using induction and massive parallel processing to determine the plausibility of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain many other things that would otherwise be explained?
Lets look at a classic case of intuition: the feeling that something dangerous is hiding behind the shower curtain. We have all felt it. This would seem to be a perfect case of our intuition malfunctioning and giving us a ridiculous feeling that we know cant be right. But is it really?
How well does the idea that something dangerous might be hiding behind the shower curtain fit with everything else we know?
People do indeed break into other people homes and rob them every day. If you were to come home while they were doing so they might quickly try to hide somewhere. The first places someone would think to try to hide would be under the bed or in the shower. A person who robs other people and then tries to hide is undoubtedly an irrational and therefore dangerous and unpredictable person.
So the possibility of a dangerous person hiding behind the shower curtain, though extremely unlikely, is nevertheless real. Some will argue that the fear we feel is all out of proportion to the actual risk. This is well and fine for all those people for whom the possibility of being brutally raped and murdered by a vicious psychopath is no big deal but for the rest of us there is a very good reason why we feel so much fear.
Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one. This is an important principle in understanding Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator divides people into 2 groups according to their perceiving functions. "Sensing" and "Intuition" types. People are also divided into extraverts and introverts. Extraverts are mainly concerned with outward appearance while introverts are more concerned with the underlying reality. Extraverts would be particularly prone to treating people as objects (collections of atoms) while introverts would be more prone to see the inner person. Introverts think in terms of right vs wrong while extraverts think in terms of great vs not-great.
In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to be able to rightly say that a fact is "known" to be true (beyond a reasonable doubt). At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology). Rationalism should not be confused with rationalization.
Rationalism is often incorrectly contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist. The empiricist view holds that beliefs are only justified if they come to us through experience, either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. But empiricism does not claim that those beliefs are known beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore does not conflict with rationalism. The distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved.
Empiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate that "collection of atoms" to one's own ends. On the surface of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition. (Just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen").
Clearly, being "made of" something is not the same as "being" something. But this brings us to an even deeper issue. What does it mean to "be" something? In the purely empirical world view it doesnt mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels. This is, quite obviously, confusion. Words are categories and the phenomenon of Convergent evolution clearly shows that those categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.
There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using induction and massive parallel processing to determine the plausibility of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain many other things that would otherwise be explained?
Lets look at a classic case of intuition: the feeling that something dangerous is hiding behind the shower curtain. We have all felt it. This would seem to be a perfect case of our intuition malfunctioning and giving us a ridiculous feeling that we know cant be right. But is it really?
How well does the idea that something dangerous might be hiding behind the shower curtain fit with everything else we know?
People do indeed break into other people homes and rob them every day. If you were to come home while they were doing so they might quickly try to hide somewhere. The first places someone would think to try to hide would be under the bed or in the shower. A person who robs other people and then tries to hide is undoubtedly an irrational and therefore dangerous and unpredictable person.
So the possibility of a dangerous person hiding behind the shower curtain, though extremely unlikely, is nevertheless real. Some will argue that the fear we feel is all out of proportion to the actual risk. This is well and fine for all those people for whom the possibility of being brutally raped and murdered by a vicious psychopath is no big deal but for the rest of us there is a very good reason why we feel so much fear.
Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one. This is an important principle in understanding Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator divides people into 2 groups according to their perceiving functions. "Sensing" and "Intuition" types. People are also divided into extraverts and introverts. Extraverts are mainly concerned with outward appearance while introverts are more concerned with the underlying reality. Extraverts would be particularly prone to treating people as objects (collections of atoms) while introverts would be more prone to see the inner person. Introverts think in terms of right vs wrong while extraverts think in terms of great vs not-great.
