Within
philosophy, epistemology is “the study of knowledge and justified belief.”
Epistemology asks questions about the sources of knowledge, the limits of
knowledge, and the justifications of knowledge. See Matthias Steup, Epistemology, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward
N. Zalta, ed., Fall 2012 ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/ epistemology/.
Below I argue that Rationalism, rather than Empiricism, provides the best explanation
for how we gain knowledge. For background reading on these two competing views,
see Peter Markie, Rationalism vs.
Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta, ed., 2012), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/.
Humans acquire
knowledge and discover all truths only through rational investigation. It is
widely accepted that if knowledge is possible, it must be based in true,
justified belief. Rationalism suggests that the superior path to knowledge is
traversed through reason alone, that the senses are not reliable, and that
fundamental truths are inborn within each person. Among these inborn ideas is
the concept of perfection. Differing schools of thought, which disagree with
the rationalist position, have made it necessary to further defend Rationalism
and to refute their false claims. Their arguments attempt to prove that the
concept of perfection is learned through experiencing imperfection. These
arguments are weak, however, and fail to stand up to Rationalism.
Perfection is an abstract idea that cannot be
perceived with the senses. In other words, we cannot taste, touch, feel, see,
or hear perfection itself. Concepts such as flawlessness, or a degree of
excellence that cannot be exceeded, are just the beginning of our understanding
of perfection itself. Men can't even being to fathom how to empirically measure
and understand the form of perfection. But there exists within us the opposite
characteristic: imperfection. Critics of Rationalism might construct an
argument as follows:
If we are alive, then we can be imperfection. If we are capable of
imperfection, then we are capable of understanding imperfection through
observation. If we are capable of understanding imperfection through
observation, then we can understand its opposite—perfection (~imperfection)—through induction. We are alive.
Therefore, we can understand perfection through induction.
This argument has a valid form and seems to lead to
a true conclusion. Upon closer inspection, however, the argument's flaws are
readily apparent. What is the strict meaning of the term imperfection,
and how will one recognize it through observation? If imperfection is defined as anything that falls
short of perfection, then what is the strict definition of perfection to
compare against and demonstrate that the thing is indeed imperfection?
If critics of Rationalism use an argument like the one above, then they themselves
are capable of imperfection. And if they are capable of imperfection, then
their argument is capable of imperfection. Therefore, if opponents of
Rationalism use such an argument to prove that perfection can be known through
sense‑experience induction, then their arguments are also capable of
imperfection.
This Empiricist
argument (“If we are alive, then we are capable of imperfection.”) is weak and
leads to several inconsistencies and inadequacies. First, the argument includes
a self-referential inconsistency: it claims that if we are living not only are we
capable of imperfection but also we are capable of knowing perfection. But if
we are truly imperfect, we are fallible and can not be trusted to conclude the
truth about perfection. Second, the argument is unclear about the origin of the
concepts of imperfection and perfection. By studying ourselves, we recognize that
we lack excellence in various areas of our lives—we have flaws. The only way to
recognize self-imperfection is to have a true, justified belief, backed by
empirically tested data, of what perfection is since it is the opposite of
imperfection. Yet the only way to arrive at the idea of perfection is to have
the same type of knowledge regarding imperfection. Empirically finding these
answers presents a major paradox.
Since
perfection does not exist within our nature, we must rely on reason to uncover
the truths already embedded within our minds. The form of perfection will
always exist, regardless of whether we are ever perfect ourselves. The origin
of all principles and ideas, then, must exist outside of our sensory experience. For
present purposes, the form of imperfect and the form of perfect are the main
focus. We can discover the concepts of perfection and imperfection either through
empirical observation, experience, and induction or through rational inquiry.
As demonstrated above, however, we cannot discover perfection and imperfection through experience,
empirical observation, or induction. Therefore, we can discover perfection and
imperfection—two innate ideas that have always existed—only through reason.
Understanding
the form of perfect requires a priori knowledge, or knowledge that does
not depend on sensory experience, because we cannot accurately classify
anything in our our world as perfect. Observed actions about the nature of an
intangible concept such as imperfection cannot lead to a justified, true belief
about the nature and idea of its opposite. Therefore, perfection exists
innately in the mind as an ideal and not as something experienced through a
series of events. And because perfection is a concept of the mind, we must
discover perfection by gaining knowledge. Because we cannot use experience, empirical
observation, or induction to discover the concept of perfection, Empiricism cannot
fully account for how we discover knowledge. It thus follows that humans
acquire knowledge and discover all truths through rational investigation.
