Cartesian Rationalism vs. Empiricism: Impact on Society
Cartesian Rationalism vs. Empiricism
This article examines the evidence of the thinking subject as the first undoubted truth, a rational, innate evidence that precedes the demonstration of other substances (extended and divine) according to Descartes. Cartesian thinking is, therefore, fully rational, contrasting sharply with the empiricism of another seventeenth-century philosopher, Hume.
The Role of Innate Ideas
Innate ideas play an essential role for Descartes. To build the edifice of knowledge deductively, initial data free from sensory experience is needed; the prototype is the evidence of the thinking subject. Only after establishing these ideas can Cartesian rationalism extend knowledge beyond the limits of the thinking substance, forever separated from the errors that come from the senses. However, Hume denies the existence of innate ideas. For him, all data are necessarily empirical. From birth, a person is like a blank slate, free from prejudice and principle. Having rejected the idea of innateness, Hume affirms that human knowledge cannot exceed the limits of experience, leading to radical skepticism. He doubts the existence of the world, as we cannot know whether our senses deceive us, and of God, as we cannot experience Him sensitively, limiting reality to what we can perceive.
Distrust of Sensory Information
Cartesian rationalism’s distrust of sensory information leads to a discussion of the fallacies of the senses, resulting from the difficulty of discerning the real from the illusory. This difficulty is depicted in films like *A Beautiful Mind* and series like *House*. In both, the protagonist faces a dichotomy similar to the distinction between dream and wakefulness noted by Descartes, and in both cases, they offer a response similar to that of the philosopher, using reason as the only reliable resource.
Rationalism’s Impact on Society
Rationalism, therefore, has a major impact on society. The idolatry of reason has led us into a scientific framework in which we reject everything that does not pass the critical screening of mathematics. Proof of this is the prevailing atheism in our society: God disappears because attempts to rationally prove His existence have been unsuccessful. We try to rationalize everything, including morality. An example is human rights, which signify innate human conditions that transcend a mere legal code.
A Synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism
In my view, Western society has progressed due to a combination of empiricism and Kantian rationalism. The scientific method uses both experimental induction and the deductive reinforcement of mathematics. Descartes’ exclusive rationalism is, in my opinion, unable to escape the solipsism of the subject and claims to demonstrate a reality alien to him *through* deduction, making Cartesian rationalism an unstable theory. Today, humanity has abandoned this line of epistemological thought from the moment that science surpasses philosophy. It is not as important that our knowledge is well-founded as it is useful. On the other hand, the rationalization of feelings and morals (which pertains more to the emotions) has resulted in the dehumanization of modern society.