Reflection On The Principles Of Empiricism

Throughout the past few weeks, I have learned many things regarding the principles of empiricism individually and as a class. We, as a class has also discussed how these principles have been applied by different philosophers throughout history. In this reflection, I will share the main principles of empiricism and how these principles were used by three key philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries. I will also explore the conclusions that I have personally gathered from studying this topic.
Empiricism is the belief that human knowledge is gained through sense experience. This knowledge is “a-posteriori” which is a Latin word that literally means “from the latter'. (Merriam Webster) What this means for empiricist theory is that humans do not have any innate ideas or intuition and are therefore born with their mind as a blank slate. In the empiricist view, anything we know in life comes from our own life experience.

The first person to introduce empiricism to the public was an English physician named John Locke. He got his ideas by reading Descartes’s work and problem-solving by using the principle of Ockham’s razor. This principle, in plain terms, says that between two options the simple answer is probably correct. (Palmer 2016, 76) The first theory that Locke used was that the human mind starts as a blank slate. He says “Whence has it (the mind) all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer in one word, from experience.” (Palmer 2016, 76)

The next step in Locke’s theory brought him to simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas are those that do not need to be analyzed further such as something solid or the color blue. On the other hand, there are complex ideas. These are compounds of simple ideas, like the idea of beauty, gratitude or relationships. Building on that idea Lock moved on to primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are believed to be properties of objects while secondary qualities are the sensations that are created by objects. For instance, the weight, size, and shape of a banana would be its primary qualities, but the color, smell, and taste would be its secondary qualities.
Locke believed that the secondary qualities of objects aren’t really there, they are just our perceptions of their primary qualities. This is what philosophers have categorized as representative realism. The issue with this idea is that you can’t perceive certain things about an object while completely ignoring others. If I look at the banana I mentioned earlier, I can’t see it without color. Therefore, my perception is influenced by the secondary qualities whether I want it to be or not.
This is the exact reasoning that brought Irish minister George Berkeley into the picture of empiricism. He believed that Locke’s errors could be easily solved by applying Ockham’s razor more aggressively. He did this by applying it to the idea of material substance. This new idea was extremely radical because it viewed any physical object as simply the total combination of our sense data, and our sense-data was just made up in our mind. This meant that physical objects exist only as perception in human consciousness.

This philosophy is categorized as a form of idealism since it prioritizes the mental world over the physical world. In essence, this theory can be put into the phrase “esse is percipi” or “to be is to be perceived.” (Palmer 2016, 85) Berkeley also puts a big emphasis on language as a way for us to understand our sense of experience with other people, which is important since he believed we are only perceiving these senses! The most serious issue with Berkeley’s theory, however, is this: If things only exist in sense data and aren’t actually real, where does the sense data come from?

Berkeley answered this question by saying that God gives us the orderliness of sense data by constantly perceiving it. This brings up an obvious issue; If everything must be perceived to exist, how can we perceive God? Berkeley admitted that God cannot be perceived but instead put him into a nonexistent category so that his theory would make sense. Luckily, Berkeley’s empiricist successor was not content with this explanation and continued to question this theory.

The final empiricist was a librarian named David Hume. While Hume agreed on the general ideas on empiricism such as the “blank slate”, the use of Ockham’s razor, and the view of knowledge coming from sense data, he did not agree completely with his empiricist predecessors. What he added to the theories of Locke and Berkeley was the idea of analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are characterized by 4 key things. One, their negation leads to self-contradiction. Two, they are a-priori. Three, they are true by definition. Four, they are necessarily true, and finally five, they are all tautologies. Or more simply, the predicate only says what is already in the subject. (Palmer 2016, 91-92)

In this view, even though there is a priori knowledge it can never be about anything but itself. Moving on to synthetic propositions is easy since they are just the opposite of analytic propositions in every way. According to Hume, these two propositions are the only kinds of meaning that one can have in empiricism. The theory then disproves the essence of God. For example, saying “God exists” and then negating that statement does not make a self-contradiction. And since the idea of God can’t be traced to sense data Ockham’s razor must be used.

Since Hume used Ockham’s razor to undermine Berkeley’s idea of empiricism, he developed what is known as radical empiricism. Hume believed there was no need for connection between any cause and any effect, only an expectation in the mind which was a figment of the human imagination. This view easily leads to skepticism since it seems as though in Hume’s theory there is no self or sense of self.

It is easy to start learning about radical empiricism and start questions anything and everything in the world around you. While that may be useful in some areas, I think it can also be harmful in experiencing your life as it is right now. It’s interesting to think like an empiricist that a posteriori knowledge is the only kind of knowledge that is really worth anything, but personally, I disagree. While your sensitive data may play a larger role in how you perceive things, I can’t help but think we aren’t completely a blank slate, to begin with.

Of these three philosophers, I think I would lean most towards Berkeley’s theory. Even though I may not personally believe in the same concept of God as he did, I understand where he was coming from. There is something comforting about a view of life where there is a recognizable unknown in the form of a God as opposed to Hume’s view, where it seems as though everything is unknown. Regardless, I believe knowing about these empiricist theories will help me evaluate other complex issues in my life. These theories have also opened my eyes to the idea of physical objects being less literal, and more a personal opinion.