THE Current Application OF Rationalism IN Today’S Society PDF

Preview

Summary

THE Current Application OF Rationalism IN Today’S Society...

Description

THE CURRENT APPLICATION OF RATIONALISM IN TODAY’S SOCIETY  In philosophy, rationalism is defined as an epistemological position that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowing" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" In a previous debate, rationalism was pitted against empiricism, with rationalists believing that reality contains an inherent logical structure. As a result, rationalists contended that certain truths exist and can be immediately grasped by the intellect. To put it another way, rationalists claimed that some logical principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so profoundly true that denying them leads to inconsistency. The rationalists had such faith in reason that they considered empirical proof and physical evidence to be superfluous in determining some facts 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 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. In the 17th-century Dutch Republic, the rise of early modern rationalism – as a highly systematic school of philosophy in its own right for the first time in history – exerted an immense and profound influence on modern Western thought in general,[6][7] with the birth of two influential rationalistic philosophical systems of Descartes (who spent most of his adult life and wrote all his major work in the United Provinces of the Netherlands)[8] and Spinoza–namely Cartesianism and Spinozism. 17th-century arch-rationalists such as Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz gave the "Age of Reason" its name and place in history.

Background  Rationalism, as a philosophical appeal to human reason as a means of getting information, has a long philosophical history. The analytical nature of much philosophical inquiry, as well as awareness of seemingly a priori domains of knowledge like mathematics, combined with an emphasis on obtaining knowledge through the use of rational faculties (commonly rejecting, for example, direct revelation), have made rationalist themes very prevalent in the history of philosophy. Since the Enlightenment, rationalism has been associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy, as seen in the

works of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza. This is known as continental rationalism, because it was prevalent in continental European schools, whereas empiricism dominated in Britain. Even even then, the divide between rationalists and empiricists was made later, and the philosophers involved would not have recognized it. Furthermore, there is a contrast between the two philosophies. Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge. Notable philosophers who held this view most clearly were Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, whose attempts to grapple with the epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book Monadology that "we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions." Rationalism was criticized by American psychologist William James for being out of touch with reality. James also criticized rationalism for representing the universe as a closed system, which contrasts to his view that the universe is an open system. Types and expressions of rationalism  Rationalism has somewhat different meanings in different fields, depending upon the kind of theory to which it is opposed. In the psychology of perception, for example, rationalism is in a sense opposed to the genetic psychology of the Swiss scholar Jean Piaget (1896–1980), who, exploring the development of thought and behaviour in the infant, argued that the categories of the mind develop only through the infant’s experience in concourse with the world. Similarly, rationalism is opposed to transactionalism, a point of view in psychology according to which human perceptual skills are achievements, accomplished through actions performed in response to an active environment. On this view, the experimental claim is made that perception is conditioned by probability judgments formed on the basis of earlier actions performed in similar situations. As a corrective to these sweeping claims, the rationalist defends a nativism, which holds that certain perceptual and conceptual capacities are innate—as suggested in the case of depth perception by experiments with “the visual cliff,” which, though platformed over with firm glass, the infant perceives as hazardous—though these native capacities may at times lie dormant until the appropriate conditions for their emergence arise.

 Though the thousands of languages spoken around the world differ greatly in sounds and symbols, they are sufficiently similar in syntax to suggest that there is "a schema of universal grammar" determined by "innate ideas," according to linguistic theorist Noam Chomsky, who, acknowledging a debt to René Descartes (1596–1650), explicitly accepted the rationalistic doctrine of "innate ideas." These brain-based presettings establish the pattern for all experiences, establish the principles for the construction of meaningful sentences, and explain why languages are easily interchangeable. It's worth noting that what rationalists have said regarding intrinsic ideas isn't that some concepts are fully formed at birth, but rather that the ability to understand particular connections and self-evident principles, when it occurs, is due to intelligence. In the field where its claims are clearest—in epistemology, or theory of knowledge—rationalism holds that at least some human knowledge is gained through a priori (prior to experience), or rational, insight as distinct from sense experience, which too often provides a confused and merely tentative approach. In the debate between empiricism and rationalism, empiricists hold the simpler and more sweeping position, the Human claim that all knowledge of fact stems from perception. Rationalists, on the contrary, urge that some, though not all, knowledge arises through direct apprehension by the intellect. What the intellectual faculty apprehends is objects that transcend sense experience— universals and their relations. A universal is an abstraction, a characteristic that may reappear in various instances: the number three, for example, or the triangularity that all triangles have in common. Though these cannot be seen, heard, or felt, rationalists point out that humans can plainly think about them and about their relations. This kind of knowledge, which includes the whole of logic and mathematics as well as fragmentary insights in many other fields, is, in the rationalist view, the most important and certain knowledge that the mind can achieve. Such a priori knowledge is both necessary (i.e., it cannot be conceived as otherwise) and universal, in the sense that it admits of no exceptions. In the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), epistemological rationalism finds expression in the claim that the mind imposes its own inherent categories or forms upon incipient experience (see below Epistemological rationalism in modern philosophies).  In ethics, rationalism maintains that reason, rather than emotion, custom, or authority, is the final arbiter of what is good and bad, right and wrong. The most famous representative of rational ethics among major thinkers is Kant, who believed that the best way to judge an act is to examine its self-consistency as perceived by the intellect: first, note what it is essentially, or in principle—a lie, for example, or a theft—and then ask if one can consistently will that the principle be made universal. Is it then legal to steal? The response must be "No," since if stealing were widely accepted, people's property would no longer be their own,

and theft would become meaningless; the concept, if widely accepted, would thus destroy itself, as reason alone demonstrates. Rationalism is a religious term that refers to the belief that all human knowledge is gained by the use of natural faculties rather than divine revelation. The term "reason" is employed here in a broad sense, referring to human cognitive abilities in general, rather than supernatural grace or faith—though it is also in direct contrast to so-called existential approaches to reality. For the rationalist, reason stands in opposition to many of the world's faiths, notably Christianity, which has maintained that the supernatural has revealed itself through inspired persons or texts and has demanded that its claims be recognized as infallible, even when they contradict natural knowledge. Religious rationalists, on the other hand, believe that if the evident insights of human reason must be thrown aside in favor of supposed revelation, then human cognition becomes questionable everywhere —even in the theologians' own reasonings. There can't be two of them ultimately different ways of warranting truth, they assert; hence rationalism urges that reason, with its standard of consistency, must be the final court of appeal. Religious rationalism can reflect either a traditional piety, when endeavouring to display the alleged sweet reasonableness of religion, or an antiauthoritarian temper, when aiming to supplant religion with the “goddess of reason.”

Meaning and application of rationalism  As a philosophy, rationalism is described as the use of reason and logic as a trustworthy foundation for evaluating any claims of truth, obtaining objective knowledge about reality, making judgements, and drawing conclusions about it. Although rationalism must rely on sense perceptions in the end, sense perceptions must be coupled with reasoning and proof. To be logical, a rationalist's thought process must be devoid of logical fallacies, which are cataloged in many introductory works on logic or critical thinking. Personal bias and emotion have no place in rationality; nonetheless, emotion and rationalism are not mutually exclusive; each has its place. There will be more on this later. The free formation of opinions about reality is defined as freethinking, which is commonly confused with rationalism. But rationalism is much more restrictive. It enforces logic and evidence as the guiding principle in thinking and forming opinions and cognition. So although rationalism invariably leads to freethinking, but freethinking does not necessarily imply rationalism, since freethinking may include irrational views, beliefs and personal bias. I have attempted to provide my own definitions in a precise way in a recent post (Faith Philosophy and Dogma) to help set the criteria for freethinkers/freethinking.

 Rationalism as a philosophy necessitates a level of mental discipline that many people find difficult to apply to their ideas and actions. Many people aren't even aware that they aren't acting rationally. The reason for this is that some people wrongly link rationalism with particular values and perspectives that are not always associated with it. Through logic and critical thought, rationalism as a philosophy ultimately leads to scientific method. As a result, a rationalist cannot a priori subscribe to any political or ideological system, nor can a rationalist make a truth assertion that is not a rigorous proposition.

The importance of rationalism  Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense experience. As against this doctrine, rationalism holds reason to be a faculty that can lay hold of truths beyond the reach of sense perception, both in certainty and generality.  Empiricists, and some rationalists, attack the Innate Knowledge thesis in two main ways. First, they offer accounts of how sense experience or intuition and deduction provide the knowledge that is claimed to be innate. Second, they directly criticize the Innate Knowledge thesis itself.  Education models that are aligned with rationalist theory are often used to teach subjects, such as history, art, mathematics, and science. The students use deductive reasoning to validate their answers.

Modern, or continental, rationalism refers to the works of the seventeenthcentury philosophers René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. While there is much to mark each philosopher off from the others, there are nevertheless several shared fundamental assumptions that warrant the common title of “rationalist.” Each philosopher believed that mathematics and geometry were appropriate models on which to base philosophical methodology. Each, whilst critical of founding knowledge on mere faith – which they believed could only lead to skepticism – nevertheless relied on theological arguments at various points in their philosophies. All three philosophers share a distrust of the notion that sensation, emotion (passion), and the body are capable of providing knowledge. Reason alone, on all three philosophers' accounts, is the a priori faculty which can provide secure foundations for human knowledge...