As any other living being, humans react according to the environment. The experience that we have gained can make us react in different ways. This is something favourable because we can link situations with previous experiences and we can take better decisions. If we follow the empirical knowledge when we want to ensure something, we can say that we have fewer chances to be wrong or confused because we prove by ourselves what we are investigating with our senses. It is also important to mention that following the empirical way of knowledge, a person is harder to trick as he will not believe in what everybody says. This person will want to experience any information by himself in order to believe in it.
But, isn’t the empirical knowledge a way of limiting ourselves and our vision of the world? If we just believe in what we experience, how can we expand our knowledge? There is when the rational knowledge comes. As I have previously explained, the empirical knowledge is based on the physical world. On the other hand, the rational knowledge has to do with the internal side of humans; this is the mind and the soul. In this way, the rationalism says that knowledge comes from our intellect and our powers of reason. The rationalism contradicts the empiricism as it says that we can not trust our senses. This is particularly true because many times we are tricked by our senses. So, how can we trust in the empirical knowledge if its base, the senses, is not reliable?
Humans have to find logic in the decisions we make and in the knowledge we gain. We can not just react and think according to our senses and our experience because that would make us irrational beings. So rationalists are right when they say that logic and reason are vital for human beings. It is also reliable to trust in a philosophical vision of the world. We can not just accept things as we feel them; we have to find a reason and logic. It is interesting the way Descartes saw the world. He thought that he could doubt everything, except that he doubted. In this way, we can not be sure of anything, but we can use our reason to gain knowledge and to explain some things.
However, how can we define reason and logic? Following the rationalism we could only believe in our internal side: our feelings, our thoughts, our reason and logic. But, is that a reliable way of gaining knowledge? First of all, what happens if someone finds something reasonable when it is not? Logic and reason are completely relative terms. And we can also ask if everything has to have a reason and logic. What would happen to our experiences if we do not use them for the future anymore? What type of use, in terms of knowledge, would our senses provide us if we do not trust anything about them?
The questions against each type of knowledge and the opinions in favour of them make me conclude that a combination of both, the empirical and the rational knowledge, provides us with a reliable vision of the world. Even the philosopher Locke, linked with the empiricism, gave importance to the rationalism. On the other hand, Descartes, linked to the rationalism, was more radical, coming with his saying ‘I think, therefore I am’. Descartes’ adage means that if you think, you exist, as you are only sure of your thoughts. But, obviously, a person that exists has experienced and has used his senses. If you exist, you experience and therefore you think. That is why I think that it is part of our nature to gain knowledge from our exterior and our environment as well as from our reason and logic. This is the perfect combination for us to discover the world and to trust in ourselves.
