INTRODUCTION

Empiricism from nearly all indications means all human knowledge is derived from
sense experience. Empiricist holds the view that man is not born with any idea
and that the human mind at birth is completely blank. Notable empiricist
philosophers include John Locke, David Hune, and Bishop George Berkley and so on.
Empiricism originated from Britain and it as origin which stem from a common
prejudice that man does not know things directly but grabs only the impressions
this object makes upon him. Empiricist deny the rationalist theory of innate
ideas of man’s mind at birth, but maintained that all knowledge and ideas come
experience and stress the indispensible roles of sense experience as the
foundation of knowledge. To acquire knowledge of an object we have to perceive
that object with our sense which includes sense of sight (eye), hearing (ear),
smelling (nose), touch (skin), and taste (mouth). Empiricism system set out to
see how we can penetrate realty. Because of the influence of empiricism,
empiricist tradition prolong by Russell was not to be doubted that an African has
genuine knowledge of his own sentiments, passions and feelings which reconceived
as kinds of transparent object that we encounter in our experience. Such
knowledge of the so called data of consciousness or of experience was taken to be
the model of unquestionable knowledge of matters or fact. The assumption was that
our thought as African differs from external objects in that there surface and
there substance is the same. We do not need to investigate them from different
point of view in order to know definitely what they are.
Philosophers have in recent years admitted that the more complex sentiments,
passion and emotions do not need to be investigated by the subject and there
elements survey as a pattern before he can be sure what they are even though they
are his own. One step father beyond this recognition, one may be led to admit that
the subject awareness of a state of mind are satisfied a settling description may
be a necessary condition of that description been truly applied to him. Along
this path one is into an analysis of intentional state and of the relation between
the passion or sentiment and its object identified as the object by the subject.
There are two distinct differences to be noticed here between knowledge of the
external world and knowledge that an African may have of his own mental state,
dispositions and processes. First normative questions enter more directly into
the choice of a vocabulary for thinking and speaking about an African thought and
feelings of others. As seen or discuss above that is empiricism and its influence
on African thought pattern would be finalized in the subsequent paragraph.
DISCUSSION
Firstly, as concerning tenets in empiricism maintains that the only way to
knowledge is through experience. The central point in empiricism is the idea that
perception is at some point undoubted. It is free from the possibility of error
because error has no place in what is given because certain truths are given in
experience. They cannot be false; they are indubitable because they are in a
sense necessarily true.
Moreover, the merit of empiricism lie first in the fact that it try to discover
truth are indubitable and to show that the rest of what we suppose with knowledge
is based on or derived from this indubitable truth and thus they provide an
alternative attitude to human knowledge to that of skeptics. Empiricist point to
what man shares with other animal’s sense. Knowledge empiricism gives man his
proper place in the universe as a thinking thing. The great defect of empiricism
comes from the influence of science which achieves great development during this
period. As such to reduce everything to matter is an over simplification of the
limits of our knowledge of the mysterious more than mere matter. From our daily
experience we know that man is omni-dimensional. Empiricism did not give adequate
solution to the relationship between the knowing subject and known object. It was
an account of this pitfall in this system that cannot attempt to meditate on the
system. In a nutshell, empiricist all agreed on the general thing that the source
of knowledge is experience but they defer in various ways. This ranges from the
weak form of empiricism to the radical and extreme form of empiricism.
Radical empiricism is the doctrine that no source other than experience provides
knowledge. One reason given for this strong claim is the very proposition or
statement that we know is neither a direct report on what is experience or a
report whose truth is inferred from experience. Another reasoning given for this
extreme form of empiricism is that we can have no idea or concept which is not
derived from experience. Even if the truth of some proposition depends on the
logical relationship between these ideas nonetheless these ideas themselves are
derived from experience in the sense that they can only have application to
experience. Moderate empiricism is the doctrine that sense in collaboration with
reason provides us with knowledge: moderate empiricism holds that there are
Apeirior assertions which are legitimate in science, but which are not based on
experience. For example we can assert that every square has four sides. In order
to assert this we do not have to appeal to experience. It is enough to know what
the term square means. So moderate empiricism allows that some class of apeirior
assertion can be a source of knowledge. All that we know is concerned with sense
or experience derived from it. All material from knowledge is derived or directly
from self experience. The having of experience is a precondition of all
knowledge.

Empiricists do not always agree on about the precise way in which knowledge is
based on sensation and there have been some of them (Locke is the most notorious)
who has been willing to allow the possibility of inference from the sensible to
the supersensible. Nevertheless most members of the school would no difficulty in
subscribing to the two principles here stated. And in consequence they would
argue that the test of the truth lies in its being (in some way) sensibly
verifiable. Empiricist bases knowledge on sensation and the results of sensation
are neither logically unimpeachable nor rationally intelligible. The empiricist
must accordingly hold either that there are no necessary truths or that they have
no direct reference to the actual world. The proper cause for empiricist of the
strict school to follow would be to deny truths of reason altogether and maintain
that the only genuine truths are truths of facts, based upon sense-experience.
This is the line taken by J.S Mill, who attempted to show in with it that many
truths recognized by Leibniz as truths of reason were in fact nothing but very
familiar empirical generalizations. He applied this analysis to geometry and
arithmetic and again to the law of universal causation and it looks as if he would
have applied it to logical principles too, though his view of these are not
logically clear. Mill is certainly not alone in his extreme empiricism, but he is
perhaps the only philosopher of importance who has made a serious attempt to work
it out. Most empiricists would admit to that there are some truths of reason.
What they are anxious to maintain however is that these do not afford significant
knowledge in the same way as truths of fact; a view which the most modern
proponents of empiricism express (rather misleading) by calling them tautologies.
Tautologies are propositions which say nothing about sensible fact and are valid
without regard to it particular nature: they have nevertheless a most important
part to play in the structure of knowledge. This modified and (as we shall see
reason to think it) improved form of empiricism was first sketched out by Idume
its modern formulation undoubtedly owes something to the study of Leibniz himself.
Extreme empiricist (who might also be called sensationalists) is taken to be
exemplified by J.S. Mill, moderate empiricist by Idume and the twentieth century
logical positivists. Thus the main interest of empiricists lies in the sphere of
sense –perception. Holding as they do that all knowledge is based on sense-
experience they are committed to give account of this basing; and that in its turn
involves them in theories of the relation of sense data or impressions to the
material objects presupposed in everyday language and scientific thinking. It is
in this field that empiricist have done their best work: the writing of Locke,
Berkeley and Idume are classical instances, while in the present century the
empiricist tradition has been well carried on by writers like Mr. Russell and
Professor Price. Their exploration of the problems of perception and the external
world leads with the most empiricist to a close study of both the results and the
methodology of the sciences, particularly the physical sciences, and the trend to
regard these as been the only reliable source of knowledge. About the other main
fields of human achievements, the arts, history, religion, and morality,
empiricist generally show far less curiosity. It is true that both Idume and Mill
in different ways have as their professed aim the understanding not of the
external world but of human nature; but there program amounts to nothing more than
( in the words of the subtitle of Idume Treatise) an attempt to introduce the
experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. They are not interested in
man as opposed to nature or as something other than the natural phenomenon. The
science of man is to be a natural science like any other and its founders see no
reason why it should not be treated as such.
Empiricism and the self one of the commonest criticism or philosophies of the
empiricist type is that they fail to give an adequate account of self knowledge.
We know ourselves it is said by these critics in a way fundamentally different
from that in which we know internal objects. Knowledge of self immediate or
direct whereas physical things are known to us only intermediately through the
impressions they make on our senses. A theory of knowledge which sees in
sensation the basis of all true statements of facts is accordingly mistaken from
the start. The self is to be known by introspection only and introspection is a
faculty precisely parallel to the external senses. Psychology thus raises no
special problems for empiricism. Kant argued that experience external and
internal alike does presuppose a unitary subject self. Unless I could relate all
the data of the sense some sort of unitary consciousness one could not describe
them as mine. But I can find no such unitary consciousness in introspection.
Consciousness of self … in inner perception is simply empirical and continuously
changing, it can produce no fixed and abiding self in the flow of inner
representation. The subject self must accordingly be presupposition of experience
rather than something we know in experience. But if that is so what can we say
about it Kant’s answer is clear – I do not know myself. A subject for that would
require a faculty of intuition over and above sense intuition. I know only that
there is such an aspect of myself. The transcendental unity of apperception the
presupposition of all experience is in fact not a substantial entity.
The doctrine has not found universal acceptance and indeed some would say that it
sets as many problems as it solves. Kant philosophy, the existence of two selves:
an empirical self will know in introspection and a real self which manifest itself
in moral action. But we are told that we can have no direct acquaintance with the
latter, pure apperception being a sole point of contact with it. The trouble
about this is that it appears to leave the whole theory in the air in a
disconcerting way unless we know our real self. How can we formulate such a
philosophy? It was consideration like this which led in the revived rationalism
of Hegel to the denial that introspection can properly be treated as on a parallel
with the outer sense. Self knowledge was Descartes had seen a higher form of
awareness, and self consciousness gave access to a more real object than external
sensation.
A second criticism of empiricism has been referred to already, the charge that
empiricist narrow the meaning of the word experience in duly claiming that all
knowledge is based on experience they proceed to equate it with sense experience
and this we are told is highly arbitrary for are there not other forms of
experience than sensing and may not, these too, be primary source of knowledge?
Among these other forms of experience have been suggested firstly the experience
of the mystic, the other is the experience of the artist and moral experience and
historical. There are then two ways of interpreting this objection to empiricism.
According to both, empiricism is false because it is too narrowly based but while
the one party is content simply to call attention to this fact, the other attempts
to interpret it in favor of rationalism. Hence arise two questions in theory of
knowledge. Are these forms of experience (primary source of knowledge) which are
not reducible to sensing? If there are, are reasons involved in them in any
special way? These are questions which I propose to take up later in the book.
Again sense and sense experience which involves the last objection to empiricism
really means we need to consider at present concerns an alleged ambiguity in it
fundamental principle. The empiricist thesis as we have stated it is that all
knowledge of matters of fact is based on sensation or introspection or again is
derived from sense experienced- now it may be argued that this apparently similar
expressions conceal an important diversity of you. Sensation result in the
apprehension of sense data but it is quite wrong to identify such apprehension
with sense experience or sense perception for in the latter an active intellectual
element is involved as well perceive sensation. Sense experience aims at bringing
sense data under concept and it result in judgment are things of the mind. Sense
experience is thus a reluctant of two component sense and thought. And empiricism
is only plausible so long as it suppresses or conveniently overlooks, the
intellectual factor which even sense knowledge involves. So much for the
weaknesses of empiricism the main crux of it to which we now turn arises over the
interpretation given to sensation in that theory. What they do need to prove is
that sensation and introspection are the sole primary source of knowledge and that
part which is the intellect plays in knowledge is strictly subsidiary. It is on
this contention that the plausibility of empiricism ultimately turns.
Furthermore, British empiricist such as John Locke, Bishop George Berkeley and
David Hume presented to us different views about empiricism. According to John
Locke who was a medical doctor by profession tries to work out of our knowledge in
terms of sense experience. As such he used the empirical knowledge of science
namely observation and conclusion. He maintained that all our knowledge comes to
us through our sense and that we have no innate ideas. He regards his philosophy
by refutation of innatism which was fundamental flow of philosophical thinking at
the time. He maintained that there is neither innate speculative concept such as
logical concept nor innate practical principle such as moral principles. He
argued that the concept of innate principles is false and unintelligible if by
innate ideas we mean logical concept and practical principles. If however by
innate ideas we mean capacities than this is true but only trivially so because we
capacities to do all sort of things. Innatist says that what is known to be true
is universally agreed upon. Locke says that it is false that these facts are
known universally or unprinted upon the mind.
Locke argues that if I have something in mind then I must be conscious it because
the mind is the vehicle of consciousness. So Locke dismisses it as intelligible
to say that one has something in one’s mind, and is not conscious of it. Locke’s
views are consistent with the empirical slogan that “which is outside our
experience we cannot know”. He claims that originally the mind is blank just like
a white paper “tabula rise”. The true source of knowledge sensation and
reflection. All our information is based on our experience either through our
senses or reflection on what goes on in our minds. The most basic elements are
simple ideas such as the taste of a sugar or the smell of a rose. The mind has
the power to repeat and combine those basic ideas ones it has experience them into
complex ideas and final abstract ones. Locke needed to give reassurance and
support to his abstract or general ideas must resemble substances in the physical
world. It is claimed that Locke is being an inconsistent empiricist by
maintaining that abstract ideas resemble substances. Locke goes further to divide
the sensation that we have into groups namely the ideas of primary and secondary
qualities. Primary qualities are those items in our experience which must belong
to the object that we experience. They are qualities which subsist in substances
and are essential to the very nature of those substances. Example of primary
qualities are size and shape. Secondary qualities are powers in these objects to
produce various sensation is us by their primary qualities e.g. colors, smell and
taste. Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities is problematic
because according to Berkely, the so called primary qualities are not essential to
objects, for him, the view that object have certain qualities which cannot be
taken away is supported by sufficient empirical evidence if they distinction is
moved to the level of ideas then in order to Locke justice the most one can do is
to focus on the primary qualities themselves and not the object.
Another empiricist is Bishop George Berkerly who was born and educated in Ireland.
Among other things, he tried to show that certain aspect of Locke’s philosophy
were in resemblance with empiricism. He argues that responding act ideas had
committed him to claim a world of substance which he Beckerly wanted to do away.
We claimed that Locke’s separation of primary qualities from his secondary
qualities and His claim that primary are really qualities of substance had led him
to develop a theory in which real things are different from the items of our sense
experience. Berkely claimed that there were no such things like abstract and
whatever ideas, we have are particular ideas of particular experience. For him
every perception is unique. He argues that all we perceive are ideas because to
perceive is to be in a sensory state. What we call object are not really but a
collection ideas. So if there are objects which are the collection of ideas it
means, the ideas are perceived which in turn means that someone is in a sensory
state. So B for Berkerly, the existence of things depends on the ability of them
being perceived. This is normalized in his famous dictum “to be is to be
perceived”. The next question which can be addressed is where do ideas come from?
Berkely says the origin is mysterious; God is the cause of our sensation and we
ourselves are the causes of ideas of imagination. So Berkely derives Locke’s that
there exist a physical reality behind our experience because to hold this view one
would have to account for how he got to know of this reality beyond our
experience. Berkely is also termed an idealist for saying that material objects
do not exist independent of air perception.
The last of the three British empiricists signed above is no other person but
David Hume. He maintained that there are two kinds of elements within the mental
content of understanding and a distinction between the two is necessary. He
therefore distinguishes between what he called ‘impressions’ and “ideas”. He
claimed that the understanding is limited to this mental content. Impressions are
the content of the mind in perception. Ideas are the content of the mind on
imagination. Hume arrived at these distinctions from an empirical point of view
according to what the first element in ones experience begins with sense
experience then later leads to ideas or thoughts. He maintained that the
relationship idea and impression is one correspondence and resemblance. For
every idea is a corresponding and resembling impression. The difference between
the two is one of force and liveliness. The impression being more lively and
forcefully than the idea Hume maintained that all philosophical problems must be
concerned with the discovery of experience. He criticized the Meta physics on the
grounds that it leads to unsatisfactory results. For him the only meaningful
terms are either sense impressions or mathematical concept. Sense impressions are
meaningful because they are to be tested by experiences and observations.
Mathematical concepts are meaningful because they express relation between ideas
that we can intensively see to be true.
To proceed, because of the influence of empiricism on African thought pattern,
empiricist like John Locke cleared the path for his main thesis on the
experiential origin of all knowledge. This he must first do by contending with
the counter thesis that at least some of our knowledge is due to innate ideas and
principles. He takes in a wide arc of opponents: The school philosophy taught at
Oxford and in Holland, the speculative doctrine of Descartes, the dogmatism of the
Cambridge Platonist and the moral innatism advanced by Werbert of Cherbury. These
thinkers present by no means a united front of common doctrine. Also, the
influence of empiricism on our thought pattern makes us Africans to believe that
when our palms itches, we are going to surely acquire money either that very
moment or at a later time. And likewise in a case where we hit on a stone at an
African we will also believe that it is either good luck or bad luck. In other
words it means either we are going to experience goodies of joy which is good news
or bad experience which is eventually bad news and an unfortunate incidence will
occur or which will occur.
Again, the meaning of “being in the mind was the provocation for Leibniz the
distinction between the innate truth itself and are thinking or perceiving it.
Leibniz declared that universal assent is not advanced as basis of proof but only
as a convincing suasion about the innate origin of first principles. He added
that Locke failed to distinguish sufficiently between necessary truth of reason
and contingent truth of fact. In the case latter proposition Leibniz was willing
to allow the need for sense experience. However to supply the ideas and
connections that constitute the truth itself but only to arouse the mind to a
definite perceiving of these ideas in the required connections. It is obvious
that our act of perceiving thinking as and African about ant truth that cannot be
presented in the mind otherwise than by an actual perception or remembrance.
As Africans, our own designed or pattern truths can be granted that are implicitly
present in three sense that the understanding itself belong to human nature from
the albeit, but Leibniz added that the understanding is present precisely as a
dynamic aptitude for drawing its principles from its own active disposition. In
the case of truly first principles or truth of reason moreover he contended that
sense experience was not needed even for the act of thinking about the truths.
Some Africans go further to employ three main criteria as their own pattern, the
first principle are only present in the mind when they are formally and explicitly
stated in text book fashion that they are useless, unless they can serve as the
proximate premises of scientific deduction or hypothesis that they are not genuine
principles unless they may be applied without any guidance from experience. In a
realistic outlook our experience of the existent world is required for both
genesis and the application of principles.
Furthermore the questions that one will choose to ask and the precise term in
which they are asked will be to a greater degree determined by the opinion that
one holds about that which is valuable by human experience. For example the
concept of will of motive and of imagination have been differently circumscribed
and differently stressed or even omitted together in accordance with changing
values. There exists a wide range of states of mind and processes of mind, which
can only be attributed to persons who have the appropriate kind of self knowledge
or self awareness. Only persons who draw certain distinctions and employ certain
sophisticated concepts and draw the appropriate distinctions can experience those
sentiments which are discriminated from others by thoughts that accompany them in
the subject mind.
In conclusion empiricism is all about the fact that all human knowledge is derived
from the senses. This of course the empiricist hold the view that man is not born
with any ideas and that the human mind is completely blank like white paper
“tabula Rise”. Notable empiricist philosophers including John Locke, David Hume,
and Bishop George Berkely and so on denied the nationalist theory of innate ideas
of man’s mind at birth but maintain that all knowledge ideas come from experience
and stress the indispensible role of sense experience as the foundation of
knowledge. John Locke maintained that all our ideas or concept in which knowledge
is to be expressed come alternatively from experience because it is derived
directly from sensation or from reflection or what is given. It influences our
thought as Africans in the sense that due to experience when our palms itches us
we are hoping or expecting to have money if not much or in abundance which will
make us joyful.