EPISTEMOLOGY 65
8. Hume was normal human being and he did not advise any-
thing which might disrupt the daily life.
What do you know about Rationalism ? What are its limits ?
Or
Critically examine Rationalism as a theory of knowledge and
discuss it as a ‘standpoint in epistemology.
Rationalism in philosophy believes in only that knowledge
whose nature is rational. Such a standpoint began with Descartes
who is regarded as the father ‘of modern western philosophical thou-
ght. Before the ‘advent of rationalism, whatever were recorded by
scriptures were accepted as the only truths. Nobody could doubt
these truths.
Rationalism
From the historical point of view, it is Descartes that founded
the theory of rationalism. For the first time he declares that in phi-
losophical reflections nothing should be admitted purely on the basis
of faith. He lays down the following four principles which he wants
the people to follow to get ‘accurate and rational knowledge of vari-
ous objects.
The first principle is that nothing should be regarded as true
unless it is known to be such. This principle avoids any preconceived
notion or prejudice about a particular thing.
The second stresses that each difficulty one faces in reaching a
definite conclusion should be broken into as many parts as possible
for examination.
The third advises the conduct of thoughts in such order that by
beginning with the objects which are simple and easy to know, one
might rise up gradually to the knowledge of more difficult and comp-
lex nature.
The fourth and the last principle lays down. that in ev
: er
enumerations made should be so complete and reviews so peal tbat
there is no possibility of omitting anything.
These four principles formed the foundation of th i
philosophy developed by Descartes. To make his Sion
and effective, he takes the help of mathematics to arrive at fe hil
sophy which may be compared with that of the mathematics. leat
Source of knowledge
Descartes emphasises that the reason alone i yurce
knowledge. It is the reaso: i D distingul ee ay
kon n which helps to distinguish between unreal
|66 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
It also gives one power to reach the knowledge. Everyone
h by his
and real.
everyone can get at the trut!
possesses reason and, therefore,
personal efforts.
It is clear from above mentioned facts that in rationalism as
Descartes
developed by Descartes individual becomes important:
the saying
carries his rational argument further and says that eveo
He believes that everyone
of scriptures may be of doubtful nature.
should make attempts afresn to know the truths through his owa
reason. The use of reason calls for much alertness and discipline
because the immature intellect of childhood and youth cannot give us
right knowledge. The different impressions which influence us in the
process of our developments cause many preconceptions in the mind.
Descartes, therefore, wants 10 tid the mind of all preconceptions
while searching for knowledge. One should begin one’s search with
a method of doubt which should serve the purpose of stepping-stone
to reach the definite truth. Descartes, however, advises that till one
has achieved the definite knowledge, one may act upon the workable
principles. Such workable principles may be traditional rules and
customs.
Growth of Rationalism
After Descartes, it was Spinoza who further developed the
theory of rationalism. Like Descartes, Spinoza was also very much
drawn to modern consciousness and mathematics. Both these philo-
sophers’ faith ia ‘mathematical method is the chief characteristic of
epistemological philosophy.
But there are aiso some dissimilarities between the two philoso-
hers. The approach Descartes adopted is more scientific but
pinoza’s approach is founded on a mystic philosophy and deep faith
efinite form to philosophy
in God. Besides, Descartes tries to give a de
on the But Spinoza accepts the mathematical
basis of mathematics.
method in its detail as well. In his famous book, Ethics, Spinoza
begins with certain definitions, arrives at self-evident axioms, and
then proceeds to formulate theorems. This sequence has been taken
from geometry.
Spinoza has also considerable faith in reason as Descartes has.
He holds that truths can be known through reason because reality is
rational in nature. He also believes that nothing is beyond reason
to apprehend nature or ultimate reality. According to him, God has
also, taken help of rationality to create the world. This attitude of
Spinoza leads his rationalism into mysticism. So much emphasis he
Jaces on reason that he thinks the intellectual love of God to be the
He regards this intellectual love of
Bighest state of oo being.
as a part of that infinite love by which God loves himself.
who has attained knowledge is more happy and satistled uo be
is aware of eternal relation between the world and God. In one’s
intuition one can find the highest fyrm of intellectual activity. It isEPISTEMOLOGY 6
intuition which is the realization of true knowledge. It helps one to
know the necessary relation between different phenomena. It kills
all fears and miseries. It takes one to the greatest height of moral
and spiritual attainment.
Zenith of rationalism
The development of rationalism is greatest height in the philo-
sophy of Leibnitz, a modern: philosopher.
Leibnitz differs from Descartes. While the latter considers
only the basic ideas to be innate, the former believes that all ideas
= ae Thus the approach of Leibnitz is also opposed to that of
ocke.
Leibnitz describes innate ideas in different words. Sometimes
he calls them tendencies while at other times he calls even substances
as innate ideas. Most empiricists believe that there is nothing in the
intellect which is not already in the senses. Leibnitz goes a step
further and says there is nothing in the intellect besides the intellect
itself. Thus it is the intellect, not in the senses that the sources of
knowledge lies. The germs of all our knowledge are already existing
in the mind from the very beginning. If we do not know them, it is
use We are not conscious of them. These innate ideas gradually
come up and become clear as a result of intellectual activity.
According to Leibnitz, though the ideas are already in the
intellect, the sense of experience gives them any new capacity an oc-
casion to be expressed. The innate and unknown ideas are not known
without this sensual experience. On the basis of this argument, Leib-
nitz draws the conclusion that since all the innate ideas are already
existing in the mind, no knowledge can be claimed to have been
acquired. But he does not believe the mind to be passive as other
empiricists do. He regards man as a microcosm in a macrocosm.
Man’s mind, according to him, is always active though he has no
knowledge of his unconscious and sleepy states. The innate ideas
gradually manifest in the mind through the activity of the intellect.
In the beginning, they are vague but gradually they become clear,
In this process the sensory perceptions provide occasions for know-
ledge but the intellect alone makes the ideas manifested. Thus know-
ledge consists of ideas. This view takes rationalism to its apex.
Main features of rationalism
From a study of the views of important Philosophers of rationa-
lism, it is not very difficult to prepare a list of the main features of
this branch of philosophy. They are as follows :
1. Both root and other ideas are innate,
2. Mind is active,
3. Sensory perceptions provide an occasion for knowledge,68 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
4, Only the reason is the ultimate testimony of knowledge,
and
5. Only through intellect can we get a definite, true and uni-
versal knowledge.
Criticisms |
The principles of rationalism have also come in for a sharp
criticism at the hands of many moderna philosophers. The main
criticisms of rationalism are three which are as follows +
1. The theory of rationalism gives a secondary importance to
sensory perceptions in the ‘achievement of knowledge. It is wrong.
Even in the knowledge of mathematics, the sensory experience plays
a very important part. Kant has demonstrated that intellect cannot
do anything in the absence of sensory experience because only the
sensory perceptions provide the raw material for knowledge.
2. The rationalists fail to provide any contention for their
acceptance of ideas to be innate.
3. They fail to agree among themselves as to how many ideas
are innate.
SUMMARY
|. Rationalism began with Descartes who is hailed as the
father of modern western philosophical thought.
2. His main four principles laid the foundation of rationalism.
3. He took help of Mathematics to reach philosophical con-
clusions.
4. He believed reason to be the source of knowledge.
5, He improved the importance of individual.
6. He wants mind to be free from prejudices.
7. Spinoza further developed the theory of rationalism.
a myc pbc haviog dep ath in Gol
9. He also believed the reason to be the source of knowledge.
10. The rationalism of Spinoza leads to moral and spiritual
development.
11, Rationalism reached its climax in the philosophy of
Leibnitz.
12. He considers all ideas to be innate.
13. According to him, there is nothing in the intellect besides
the intellect itself.EPISTEMOLOGY o
14. He said that sensory perceptions provide an occasion for
knowledge.
15. He regarded man as microcosm in macrocosm.
16. Man’s mind is always active, though he has no knowledge
of his unconscious and sleepy states.4 ‘WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
8. Kant’s analysis of the process of knowledge is called
sm. He examines limits of knowledge arriving at his judge-
f knowledge and of two types—
Cri
ment which he said is the unit o!
analytic and synthetic.
3. According to Kant, there are three faculties in process of
knowledge—reasoning, understanding and sensibility.
What is the conflict between Rationalism and Intuitionalism ?
Or
Compare the assertion of Intellec
of metaphysical knowledge.
In Western philosophy rationalism grew out of mathematical
methods. Descartes held that while the basic principles are received
from innate ideas, other truths must be mathematically deduced from
them. Spinoza defined the basic concepts and reached corollaries
from them and then formulated axioms and theories on the basis of
geometrical methods. Leibnitz, being a mathematician himself,
favented several mechanical principles to fill up the gaps in his
monadology, though the experiment did not succeed very well.
¢ and Intuition as iastruments
Criticism of raticnalism
If rationalism failed to make much progress. the reason was that
philosophy has never been an exact explanation like that in mathe-
natical, laws but an explanation of facts and values based on real
experience. In metaphysics the principle of casualty should not be
considered similar to laws of logic. Both are quite different.
In rationalism philosophy suffered a lot. It lost all its richness,
flexibility and concreteness. It became rigid, abstract, and static. Its.
progress was severely checked. Mathematics came to dominate the
Philosophical speculation. The distinction between philosophy and
mathematics was lost sight of. The rational method is the method
of analysis in the field of knowledge and therefore it miserably fails
to supply the contents of knowledge. Particularly this was the reason
why the leaders of anti-intellectualism like Bradley and Bergson
rejected intellect as an instrument of metaphysical inquiry. They
pointed several defects of intellect. According to them, there is a
tendency of doubting in the intellect. vanity to know the elements
beyond its reach, the attempt to explain the non-physical phenomena
by means of physical laws and a demand of physical proof everywhere.
These antagonists of rationalism were correct to a great extent
eee eae level re truths can be discovered by means -of
intellect it it cannot be sole nt iri i
knowledge. agent for acquiring metaphysicalEPISTEMOLOGY 15
In the course of philosophical discourse Bergson says : “«Phi-
losophy can only be an effort to dissolve again into the whole’ .
He rejects the pleas that intellectual judgements can ever take
us to the final conclusions because neither the intellect can
reach the root nor can it attain the whole. The ultimate reality
cannot be subject to reasoning or hearing. Reason cannot be the
dynamic power of life because all our actions and motivations origi-
nate in sources of which intellect is never a part.
Worth of rational instrument
After going through the criticism of rationalism one may like
toask if there isany use of rationalism. A careful study of the
criticism would reveal that defects pointed cut in intellect are, in
fact, the defect of “unenlightened reason”. In an uaenlightened
form any instrument will prove useless, It can be an effective means
of receiving light or knowledge if it is surrendered open, quiet and
receptive. It can also be the aid to the experience of spiritual states
and to the fullness of an inner change. When we can attain know-
ledge ty physical and psychological means, there is hardly any reason
why we cannot achieve knowledge by the thinking mind. The oaly
thing that is needed is that both intellect andthe mind should be
enlightened.Intuiticnalism
_ Most of those philosophers who are opposed to intellect and
rationalism believe that intuition is the only important means of
metaphysical knowledge. But none of them defiue what they mean
by intuition. :
__ The early empiricists believed that intuitive knowledge is identical
with sensory experience. Croce defined intuition as ‘sensatioa in
the form of mental imagery.” Bradley defines it as a “total experie-
nce”. He rejected the empiricial definition as direct knowledge based
on sensory experience. Both Bradley and Spiaoa hold that intuition
ig aconcrete experience of reality which expresses itself aot only in
its universal aspect but also in its unique individuality. In intuition,
says Bradley, ‘what we discover rather is a whole in which distinction
can be made but in which division do not exist.”
Direct experience
The intuitive knowledge is believed to be the knowledge of the
It is the result of our inquiry into the Highest Entity and
knower.
It can not be
‘the object of our knowledge is an attained substance.
called an activity but knowledge itself. It has no distinction. Tt i:
homogeneous experience. Bradley says, ‘1 am driven to the conclu
sion that for me experience is the same as the reality.” In the highes
timeless status, there is no activity of knowledge, nor is it observ ation
bu tan internal awareness that self is everything and everything is sell16 ‘WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
i jousness nearer to knowledge
___Tatuition is a DOME oF voaterpreted or eae] ment,
aa sri to different levels the vital, physical ad mental
elements. so trerent nature. Intuitive knowledge, says erBson,
tart ital level. Even the material substance has an intyj:
is Deculiay to eet On every level of evolution the intuition adopys
Reone: to it and helps the creative force emphasising the | sponta.
feast Oa tie mental level, the intellect is always guided by intuition
in the form of faith.
Levels of intuition :
i nt distinction between the higher and the lower
ae eee made by Bradley. He says, “Such an experience
serves to suggest to us the general idea of a total Gaens where
will and thought and feeling may all once more be one i. Thus
according to him, the higher immediacy is an imagination based on
lower immediacy. But here he creates confusion by putting two
different levels of intuition which do not share anything in common
except the external similarity. The spiritual intuition, on the other
hand, isa knowledge different from mental, vital and physical intui-
tions. While it is easy to examine the intuitions characteristic of the
mental, vital and physical level by intellect, the spiritual intuition is
not within its reach. In this sense the former cannot be called to be
intuition at all the reason being that there is no internal instrument
of direct evidence.
‘Complementary role
It would be wrong to assume that intellect and intuition are
opposed to each other. Their conflict may be seen only in the field
of knowledge, they are complementary to each other. Henry Bergson
says, ‘Dialectic is necessry to put intuition to the proof, necessary
also_in order that intuition’ should break itself up into concepts and
so be propagated to other men.” A contradiction between them is
found when intellect dominates senses, external impressions aad
analytic method. If it happens, it hampers spiritual experience but
once it becomes pure, balanced and enlightened, it expresses the
supramental experiences in concepts and makes spiritual experience
available to everyone. Therefore, the intellect may be a helper in
intuition as well as a hindrance in it.
SUMMARY
1. The reason why rationalism fails to i is_that_philo-
. impress is that philo-
sophy #8 Not an exact explanation like that in mathematical laws but
'n explanation of facts and values based on real experience.
2. In rationalism, phil
< Jn rati » Philos: i a
tics and its distinction forpotiee et! was subordinated to matheEPISTEMOLOGY 17
3. But it. would be wrong to call rationalism useless. In an
enlightened form it may be very useful.
4. Anti-intellectual philosophers stressed that intuition was an
important means of metaphysical knowledge.
5. Bradley was first to define intuition in the West.
6. He believed that experience is the same as reality.
7. He made important distinction between the higher and the
lower immediacy of intuition. But he confused these two different
types of intuition.
8. But the advocates of intuition did not say that intellect and
intuition are contradictory. They considered them complementary
to each other.