Dominique Bernice Paculan CRITHIN V24 “Empiricism Vs. Rationalism” The problem between empiricism and rationalism lies on a person’s effort to gain knowledge on a said topic. Being ‘rational’ or a rationalist claims that knowledge is gained in several significant ways like reason and emphasizes the importance of math and mathematical concepts. Empiricism, on the other hand claims that experience and experiments is the ultimate way to gain knowledge and concepts. Along with this, the belief that all ideas come from sense experience and all ideas are either simple or complex. Kant’s task was to unify rationalism and empiricism, to show that to gain knowledge through reason and experience is possible. Hume’s theory explaining that “connection …show more content…
Kant also believed in Metaphysics being the base structure of reality and questioned nature and its scope and limits that are connected with Metaphysics. Since being a rationalist means to believe that reason was the basis to arrive at conclusions and being an empiricist meant that only reason the way gain knowledge is limited and the only way to arrive at the nature of reality and conclusions was through experience. Kant was led to agree with both the rationalists and the empiricists. Kant’s work also implies the notion of A Priori being the knowledge available without appeal to experience and A Posteriori being the empirical ground of experience. These led to his theory of the existence of synthetic knowledge which means a person having to go out and researching whether some facts are true of not and analytic knowledge which means that facts are available by pure exercise of concepts which lies true with definition. He believed that A Priori exists in his known example of “7+5 = 12” which entails that mathematical concepts such as this do not need much reflecting due to the fact that it lies in a person’s nature of concepts. Although in some examples, he believed that no matter how much anyone analyzes a concept, it still appeals to be something