Rationalism vs. Empiricism: The Pursuit of Absolute Truth
Dissertation: Can Knowledge Be Housed?
The big question of epistemology is which party of science. Since philosophy is the place in human thought, we do not know if full knowledge is possible, and so I’m going to question: ‘How to get to know the Truth?’
The positions that have occurred throughout the history of philosophy are varied, but all are based on two clear sides that began with Plato and Aristotle: rationalism, grounded in the absolute confidence in thinking, and empiricism, based on science. The first branch, rationalism, has its advantages and disadvantages. “If you do not think, you do not exist,” said Descartes. This statement only makes me think that knowledge is subjective to each individual, and therefore, it is impossible to reach pure knowledge, knowledge of the Absolute Truth. However, neither does empiricism give me full knowledge, as its main thesis is that what cannot be demonstrable does not exist or is scientifically incorrect. As such, some sentimental realities (love, friendship, compassion, kindness) would not exist at all and would be our own inventions. Moreover, if we wrongly perceived reality for various reasons, the factor that we use science would be inaccurate and give us a false understanding of reality. Thus, empiricism is not the way to the Absolute Truth. Instead, both positions give me fragmented perceptions of reality, since science can explain purely objective phenomena and rationalism can explain some that are not, but even the union of one another does not give me supreme knowledge.
To resolve this dilemma, Ortega y Gasset proposed his theory of ratio-vitalism (“I am myself and my circumstances”) in which he proposed the life experience of man as a method of understanding, since for him man was past, present, and future. This theory has the problem that it comes close to a very large reality, but never claims to know the Truth.
Ultimately, I think the history of philosophy has not reached a sufficient level of thinking to get to know the Truth, and that being the reality in constant evolution, you cannot know everything knowable without leaving room for new concepts which extend the Truth.
Criticism and Comparison of Plato and Aristotle
The French scholar and student of philosophy Emile Bréhier, in his History of Philosophy, presents the main differences between Plato and Aristotle:
“Metaphysics of Aristotle took the place that has been left empty by rejecting the Platonic dialectic. It is “the science of being as it is being, or the principles and causes of being and its essential attributes. A particular problem arises: what is it that makes a being what it is? What is it that makes a horse a horse, a statue a statue, a bed a bed? The question is the meaning which the word has to be within the definition set forth the essence of a being. Thus metaphysics is being, in large part, a treatise on the definition: the definition problem, solved by Plato, believed the dialectic, it is actually not available to the dialectic, which judges simply the value of definitions made, or the science demonstration, which uses them as a principle but a science novel and still unknown, the desired first philosophy or science, which deals with being as being (…)”
Here lies the main difference between Aristotle and Plato. At no time should we forget that Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, and therefore they share certain characteristics, such as the fact that science and knowledge must be based on universal concepts. However, these concepts are not based on a world apart, a perfect parallel to the real world, but are inherent in the reality that we perceive in the sensible world. Therefore, the duplication of reality into two worlds requires the study of both worlds to have full knowledge of the surrounding reality. The myth that Plato’s “Demiurge” is considered almost mythical and therefore unreal by Aristotle, although he introduces a force first (prime mover) with similar characteristics.
Plato has a totally idealistic view, leaving out what you have in your outside world, even describing it as false or with the ability to look fake. Let’s say that Plato presents his theory “looking up”. Moreover, Aristotle bases his epistemology on the ability to be one thing, in purpose. With this theory being too drastic, it may lead to “the end justifies the means”, as will be seen in the play The Prince by the Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, “to get to the conquest of a principality, (…) the army should concentrate its forces in the assault on the fortification of leaders (…) killing them (the villagers) were unceremoniously of curious if this need.” Unlike his mentor, Aristotle’s philosophy is “looking down”, looking and studying the sensory world that can be perceived. Both positions as distinct reach their peak in the sixteenth century onwards, with the opposition between empiricists, close to Aristotle and epitomized by David Hume, and the rationalists, close to Plato and with René Descartes as a leader.