I believe the question, “What can we know and how we know” can be supported by both the rationalist view and the empiricist view. Indeed there is conflict between rationalism and empiricism, of which I will discuss later, but that does not mean that you have to support only one view. First I will be observing the readings of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume to get a better understanding of the rationalist view and the empiricist view. I will then discuss the conflict between Rationalism and Empiricism based off of the readings. Lastly, I will explain how the rationalists view and the empiricist view can both be used to answer, “What can we know and how we know it”.

René Descartes main argument in his reading is to express that sense and empiricism can be deceiving. His method of showing this is to process alternate truths about things by clearing his memory from all the past of taught things, of which he took in from his senses. He applied rationalism by means of meditation and thinking, without the use of any of his senses. Some key points that he uses to help prove he is a thing that exists and thinks is when he says, “I should exist, if I were to persuade myself of something” (169) and “…and thus for filling up space, so that it excludes every other body from that space” (170) Because he is not using any of his senses or any type of empiricism to find the knowledge or truth behind things, he finds himself concluding that he is a thing that thinks.

John Locke’s reading supports the empiricist view that knowledge is based on experience which can be derived from our senses. “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas” (175) Locke explains how the blank piece of paper gets filled up throughout life by explaining terms such as experience, sensation, and reflection and how that leads to ideas and qualities. Locke also makes it seem like the empiricist view is far more superior to the rationalist view, especially when he says, “He that demands a greater certainty than this, demands he knows not what, and shows only that he has a mind to be a skeptic without being able to be so.” (179)

In Berkeley’s reading, the debate between Hylas “matter” and Philonous “love of mind” helps prove Berkeley’s main argument that the mind is the key factor in the type of sensations you feel. Berkeley empowers idealism by using the characters in the story to help convince the reader that the mind is what holds the power to sensations, by proving to Hylas that matter itself is not another object that has sensation “…sensible things cannot exist otherwise than in a mind or spirit” (191) The key example that Philonous uses to prove Hylas wrong is having both hands in a bucket of water while one hand feels hot and the other feels cold. This example helps prove that the difference in sensations must be in your mind and not in the object or matter.

The main point in Hume’s reading is that experience is based on the future which resembles the past. “From causes which appear similar, we expect similar effects.” (197) A good example Hume uses is the child that felt the sensation of pain when he touched a candle. The next time the child sees the candle, the child will expect a similar effect from the cause. This helps prove his point that the future will resemble the past as long as the course of nature stays the same.

The conflict between rationalism and empiricism can be derived from the rationalist view in Descartes reading, and the empiricist view in Locke’s and Hume’s readings. Descartes claim comes into conflict with the empiricist view when he said, “…I took in either from the senses or through the senses; however, I noticed that they sometimes deceived me” (167) Clearly, the sense perception is a conflict according to the rationalists as it could be considered a weakness when trying to find the truth about something; whereas the empiricists would consider sense perception the only way to knowledge. In the Locke and Hume readings, they already assume that we are human beings that exist in this world whereas in Descartes reading, everything could be a dream where we are just things that think. All of these drastic differences raise conflicts between rationalism and empiricism, as many questions follow such as, “are we conscious?”, “Are we human or a thing that thinks?”, “Do sensations misguide us to the truth?”, and so on.

If you were to ask me which reading I found to be most plausible, I would say Locke’s reading is most plausible due to the fact that it seems more realistic than the other readings. Descartes conclusion that he, or I, is a thing that simply thinks can be imagined of, but somewhat unrealistic. According to Descartes rationalist approach, could I really be dreaming of something teaching me how to build an engine along with the understanding of the internal combustion process? I will not say it’s impossible, but very unlikely. Now if I were to take Locke’s empiricist position, I would learn how to build an engine and to understand the internal combustion process based on the experiences and teachings I received in life; I can find this more plausible simply because we do learn from experience.

Even though I find the empiricist view most plausible, I still believe that the rationalist view and the empiricist view can both be supported to answer the question, “what can we know and how we know it”. The reason I believe this is because we can simultaneously use both views to determine the “what” and “how” of things. A reason why I do not support just the rationalist or empiricist view is because senses can also be deceiving. Take for example an optical illusion. I believe that the rationalist view would win support in the case of an optical illusion. Thousands of years ago the Earth was once considered to be flat; and today that is not the case. Let’s take Locke’s position…if I were to start off in life not knowing anything, like a blank piece of paper, filling that paper with experience and knowledge according to my senses, then I could say that the Earth is flat as it appears to my eyes. But by using our senses to view the curve of the Earth at a mountain top, and our minds to further understand how the Earth can be understood to be round, hopefully supports my position of simultaneously applying your mind along with your senses to answer what can we know and how we know it.