|
In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"〔(Encyclopedia Britannica: Rationalism )〕 or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".〔Lacey, A.R. (1996), A Dictionary of Philosophy, 1st edition, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976. 2nd edition, 1986. 3rd edition, Routledge, London, UK, 1996. p. 286〕 More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".〔Bourke, Vernon J., "Rationalism," p. 263 in Runes (1962).〕 Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".〔Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Rationalism vs. Empiricism ) First published August 19, 2004; substantive revision March 31, 2013 cited on May 20, 2013.〕 Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals. Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge".〔Audi, Robert, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999, p. 771.〕 Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. Rationalism should not be confused with rationality, nor with rationalization. In politics, Rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion〔(Oakeshott, Michael,"Rationalism in Politics," ''The Cambridge Journal'' 1947, vol. 1 ) Retrieved 2013-01-13.〕 – the latter aspect's antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.〔(Boyd, Richard, "The Value of Civility?," ''Urban Studies Journal'', May 2006, vol. 43 (no. 5–6), pp. 863–78 ) Retrieved 2013-01-13.〕〔(''FactCheck.org'' ). Retrieved 2013-01-13.〕 In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham〔Cottingham, John. 1984. Rationalism. Paladi/Granada〕 noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, a worldview: ''In the past, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term 'rationalist' was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook, and for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (thus in 1670 Sanderson spoke disparagingly of 'a mere rationalist, that is to say in plain English an atheist of the late edition...'). The use of the label 'rationalist' to characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like 'humanist' or 'materialist' seem largely to have taken its place. But the old usage still survives.'' ==Philosophical usage== Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist.〔 Taken to extremes, the empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us ''a posteriori'', that is to say, through experience; either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. The empiricist essentially believes that knowledge is based on or derived directly from experience. The rationalist believes we come to knowledge ''a priori'' – through the use of logic – and is thus independent of sensory experience. In other words, as Galen Strawson once wrote, "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."〔Sommers (2003), p. 15.〕 Between both philosophies, the issue at hand is the fundamental source of human knowledge and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know. Whereas both philosophies are under the umbrella of epistemology, their argument lies in the understanding of the warrant, which is under the wider epistemic umbrella of the theory of justification. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「rationalism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|