Rationalism and empiricism are two distinct schools of thought in epistemology which explores the way knowledge can be acquired. Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes, claim that a person must rely on deductive reasoning as the process to get truths about reality. In contrast, empiricists, including John Locke, argue that knowledge can only be attained through the role of experience. As this essay closely examines Descartes’ theories on rationalism, it will also include views and arguments against rationalism by John Locke. Rene Descartes believed we are innate ‘a priori’ knowledge and can deduce truths through doubting and reasoning. In his work, ‘Meditations on the First Philosophy’, Descartes proves that the only true way to acquire knowledge is by reasoning, thus develops the method of doubting. He begins by abandoning all his beliefs that hold the slightest possibility of being deceitful, as he states, “but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once been deceived”( Descartes 43). This is what sets rationalism apart from empiricism. Without the help or trusting the five senses, one cannot experience or gain any knowledge, thus relying on an alternate source. …show more content…
Hence, develops the ‘cogito’, proving his own existence by saying, “I am, I exist, is necessary true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it” (Descartes 46). Descartes further states that everything that the mind does - including doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, imagines and feels, are all part of intellectual reasoning as it is processed through thinking. He concludes this meditation with an example of wax, showing how it’s melted form can easily be deceived by the senses, but through intellect, it can make sense of the whole experience and tell it’s the same