Empiricism: metaphysical way of thinking and work style. Its characteristic is that when observing and dealing with problems, starting from narrow personal experience, it does not take a linked, developed and comprehensive view, but adopts an isolated, static and one-sided view. Mao Zedong clearly pointed out in his works against bookishness and on practice that the key of empiricism is to despise the guiding role of Marxist theory, be satisfied with personal narrow experience, mistake local experience for universal truth, copy mechanically everywhere, and deny concrete analysis of specific problems. Empiricism in philosophical epistemology can also be called empiricism.
Rationalism is a philosophical method, and its theoretical basis is that human reasoning can be used as the source of knowledge. It is generally believed that Descartes' theory came into being during the17-18th century and spread mainly in the European continent, which essentially embodied bourgeois science and democracy and was the banner of the Enlightenment.
The difference between empiricism and rationalism
Because of the contradiction between the subject's own sensibility and rationality, it constitutes the long-standing contradiction and conflict between empiricism and rationalism in the history of philosophy.
The main difference between rationalism and empiricism
First, about the source of knowledge.
The question of "the source of knowledge" debated by rationalism and empiricism in modern philosophy is mainly about whether there is a "natural concept". Generally speaking, empiricists advocate that knowledge comes from sensory experience and deny "natural concept". On the contrary, rationalists deny that correct knowledge comes from sensory experience and affirm "natural concept" in different ways.
Empiricists believe that "all our knowledge is obtained from feelings" (Hobbes: On Objects, see16-1philosophy of western European countries in the 8th century, Commercial Press, 1975, p. 90) "All our knowledge is based on experience; In the final analysis, knowledge comes from experience. " (Locke: On human understanding, see Philosophy of Western European Countries in the 16th-18th Century, Commercial Press, 1975, p. 366) In the view of empiricists, all ideas are induced, summarized and abstracted from the perceptual content of sensory experience by thinking; All concepts can be summed up in different combinations of feeling and feeling, and everything in reason exists in the perceptual content of sensory experience; Anything that cannot be found in perceptual content is either wrong or beyond human reason; The cognitive function of thinking can only express the object with the concept of feeling. (See Zou Huazheng: Research on the Theory of Human Understanding, People's Publishing House, 1987, p. 60).
Contrary to empiricism, rationalists affirm the concept of nature in different forms. Descartes pointed out that there are three sources of ideas: first, "natural" general abstract ideas and principles in mathematics, logic, religion and ethics; second, they come from the outside world, such as hearing, vision and feeling; and third, they are non-existent "imaginary" ideas, such as flying horses and mermaids. For these three cases, Descartes believes that the ideas from the outside, like the imagination, have no truth, and only the general ideas from my own nature have truth. In other words, the understanding of "truth" can only be "natural" Leibniz further suggested that sensory experience can only perceive individual accidental phenomena, but cannot reveal the "universal inevitability" of truth. He also pointedly described empiricists as "relying solely on experience and only relying on examples to guide themselves" like livestock, so they could not adapt to the complex and changeable existence. "It is this reason that people catch animals so easily and that pure empiricists make mistakes so easily". (Leibniz: A New Theory of Human Rationality, see Philosophy of Western European Countries in the 16th-18th Century, p. 503) In the view of rationalists, thinking itself has the principle of innate knowledge beyond sensory experience, and the object can only be recognized under the grasp of the principle of innate knowledge; Cognition cannot be simplified as different combinations of feeling and feeling, but it has more natural concepts as cognitive principles; The cognitive function of thinking is to understand things according to their inherent natural principles. (See Zou Huazheng: Research on the Theory of Human Understanding, p. 60)
From the above analysis, we can see that empiricism and rationalism have their own problems that are difficult to solve. "For empiricism, is cognition just the deformation of feeling, and does it only come from sensibility, but not from rationality at the same time?" "For rationalism, is the dynamic understanding of thinking a natural concept, and does knowledge only come from rationality, but not from sensibility at the same time?" (ibid., page 6 1)
What is particularly noteworthy here is that people usually look at the source of knowledge from the perspective of "experience", so they often simply assert that empiricism is right and rationalism is wrong, without reflecting on the complex relationship between sensibility and rationality. In this regard, Engels pointed out that "our subjective thinking and the objective world obey the same law, so they cannot contradict each other in their respective results, but must be consistent with each other. This fact absolutely dominates our whole theoretical thinking. It is the unconscious unconditional premise of our theoretical thinking. " As for this "premise", materialism in the18th century, as empiricism, "is limited to proving that all contents of thinking and knowledge should originate from perceptual experience, and it also puts forward the following proposition: anything that has never been experienced in the sense does not exist rationally. Only modern idealism and dialectical philosophy, especially Hegel, have studied this premise formally. " (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 3, page 564)
Therefore, when we know the source of knowledge, we should not only admit that "all contents of thinking and knowledge should originate from perceptual experience", but also explore the internal dynamic function of thinking from the aspect of "form". In particular, people's understanding should not only form the "representation" of the experience object, but more importantly, form the thought of "universal inevitability" of the object. The thought of "universal inevitability" is not directly and readily induced, generalized and abstracted from the perceptual content of sensory experience, but affirms the law that thinking grasps existence from the source of knowledge, that is, the dynamic role of thinking. Therefore, on the source of knowledge, we should not only go beyond the habitual "experience" position, but also get rid of the "innate concept theory" of rationalism, which requires us to understand the source of knowledge materialistically and dialectically.
Second, about the method or logic of cognition.
The opposition between empiricism and rationalism in the source of cognition already includes different understanding of the method or logic of cognition. This different understanding is the opposition between individual and universal problem: can the understanding of universal inevitability be formed from individual perceptual experience?
Francis, the founder of modern empiricism? Based on the principle that knowledge comes from experience, Bacon formed his "induction" from individual perceptual experience to universal inevitability. This is bacon's "new tool".
Bacon criticized Aristotle's deductive logic of syllogism and formed his "new tool" inductive logic. Bacon pointed out that "just as existing science can't help us discover new things, existing logic can't help us discover new science". (Bacon: New Tools, Commercial Press, 1984, p. 10) This is because "syllogism can't be used in the first principle of science, and it is also invalid to be used in intermediate axioms. Because it is not as subtle as nature. Therefore, it can only be stronger than agreeing with the proposition, but not stronger than grasping things. " In Bacon's view, only induction can make knowledge rise from empirical facts to universal principles.
The basic contents of Bacon's induction are: on the basis of observation and experiment, the corresponding perceptual experience materials are obtained; The sorting of perceptual materials is classified into positive examples, counter-examples and examples whose properties change under different conditions, and these three types of examples are compared and studied. Reject unnecessary things, discard useless materials and leave useful materials; Summarize the remaining materials and get the general principle. (See Wang Tiancheng: On Creative Thinking, Jilin Education Press, 1989, p. 7) Bacon believes that this kind of induction can gradually expose different levels of natural laws and prevent people from making unnecessary guesses beyond experience. Contrary to empiricism, Descartes, the founder of modern rationalism, believes that in the process of pursuing truth, we must first explore an unquestionable principle and form a universal thought on the basis of this principle. This is Descartes' new deductive logic. The basic rules of this new deductive logic or deductive method are: first, never accept what I don't know is true as true, that is, pay attention to avoid hasty judgments and prejudices, and only put those things clearly presented in my mind into my judgment so that I can't doubt them at all; Article 2: divide every problem I have investigated into small parts as much as possible until it can be solved satisfactorily; Rule 3: Guide my thinking in order to start with the simplest and most understandable object and gradually rise to the understanding of complex objects. Even those objects that have no natural order with each other, I will set an order for them. The last one: list all the situations as completely as possible, and investigate them as generally as possible, so that I can be sure that I have not missed anything.
It is noted that Descartes' new deductive logic is no longer the traditional deductive logic and its development in modern western mathematical logic. Traditional deductive logic is an extension logic, that is, relying on the extension relationship between the concepts of universality, particularity and individuality, major premise, minor premise and conclusion are formed. Descartes' deductive logic is that the thought rises from simplicity to complexity, from abstraction to concrete connotation logic. For Hegel, the master of German classical philosophy, this connotative logic about the development of thought itself constitutes the logic of human thought movement about the dialectical development of concepts. The direct significance of Hegel's concept dialectics lies in its logic about the movement and development of human thought.
While understanding the connotative logic of Bacon's empirical induction and Descartes' rationalism, we must also see that, as two beginnings of modern philosophy, Bacon's induction and Descartes' connotative logic have some similarities that cannot be ignored: First, Bacon's induction and Descartes' connotative logic are products of trying to surpass traditional deductive logic on the basis of modern science. They do not completely deny syllogism and its logical rules, but oppose the absoluteness and authority of traditional deductive logic; Secondly, they all set out from breaking rigid ideas and prejudices and tried to realize the creativity of thinking with new methods or logic. Bacon's exposition of racial illusion, cave illusion, market illusion and theater illusion, and Descartes' exposition of eliminating erroneous ideas are all aimed at preventing the "prejudice" dominated by ancestors from misleading and binding people's understanding.
Thirdly, about the reliability of cognition, that is, which is more reliable, sensory experience or rational knowledge.
Empiricists believe that "the error or fallacy is not in the senses, the senses are not active, it just accepts the image, … the error or fallacy is in the judgment or in the mind; The judgment or mind does not give due care, and fails to notice that distant things are small and vague just because they are far away or for other reasons. The same is true in other situations. " (See Gassendi: A Challenge to Descartes' Meditation, The Commercial Press, 1963, p. 75). This blames "error" or "fallacy" on "judgment" or "mind", that is, human rationality.
On the contrary, rationalists think that feelings are "deceptive". Descartes said: "because I have observed many times: these towers are round from a distance, but they are square at close range. The colossus standing on the top of these towers looks like a figurine at the bottom;" In this way, on countless other occasions, I have found that the judgment of external senses is wrong. " (See16-/philosophy of western European countries in the 8th century, Commercial Press, 1975, p. 179). When analyzing the philosophy of Dutch philosopher Spinoza, Chinese scholars put forward: "The rationalist Spinoza inherited Descartes' epistemological thought and divided knowledge into three categories: the first category is perceptual empirical knowledge, including hearsay knowledge and general experience. The second category is reasoning knowledge; The third category is rational intuition. He said:' Only the first kind of knowledge is the cause of error, and the second and third kinds of knowledge must be true. It can be seen that Spinoza also rejects perceptual experience and only trusts the reliability of rational knowledge. "(see" Study on the History of Foreign Philosophy "Series 5, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1982, p. 14).
In the development of modern philosophy, empiricism and rationalism gradually move from two complete extremes to affirm the rationality of sensory experience and rational knowledge, but they always separate sensibility from rationality. On the basis of summarizing the empiricism and rationalism of modern philosophy, Kant, the founder of German classical philosophy, put forward the principle of combining perceptual intuition with rational thinking. His famous saying is: thinking without sensibility is empty, and intuition without concept is blind. Hegel, a master of German classical philosophy, thinks that although Kant emphasizes the "combination" of perceptual intuition and intellectual thinking, in Kant's view, "thinking and intellectuality are still a special thing, and sensibility is still a special thing. They are only combined in an external and superficial way, just like a piece of wood wrapped around a leg with a rope". (Hegel: Lecture Notes on the History of Philosophy, Volume IV, Commercial Press, 1983, page 27 1) Hegel put forward the dialectical unity of sensibility and thinking for the first time in the history of philosophy. He called for a "leap" from sensibility to rationality by virtue of the initiative of rational thinking. However, in order to truly understand the relationship between sensibility and rationality dialectically and truly transcend the one-sidedness of empiricism and rationalism, we need to treat others from the perspective of human practical activities and their historical development. This practical epistemology is a revolutionary change of Marx's epistemology.
2. Popper's philosophical system takes critical rationalism as its core, which is quite different from classical empiricism and its observation-induction method. In particular, Popper opposed observational induction. He believes that scientific theory does not apply to the universe and can only be evaluated indirectly. He also believes that scientific theories and all the knowledge that human beings have mastered are only speculations and assumptions, and people inevitably mix imagination and creativity in the process of solving problems, so that problems can be answered within a certain historical and cultural framework. People can only rely on unique data to establish this scientific theory. However, in addition, it is impossible to have enough experimental data to prove that a scientific theory is absolutely correct. (For example, after testing 6.5438+0 million sheep, people came to the theory that "sheep are white". However, apart from testing, as long as there are black sheep, the previous theory can be proved wrong. Who can endlessly test sheep to prove the absolute correctness of the theory that sheep are white? The "asymmetry between authenticity and falsehood" derived from this principle of "fallibility" (which cannot be proved, but can only be proved to be false) is the core of Popper's philosophical thought.
3. Einstein opposed quantum mechanics because it attracts potential in the research object of physics (different from the epistemological category of physicists). He said "God doesn't roll dice" to show his opposition. The main point of this view is that the dice game is based on the law of chance, while Einstein believes that the latter concept can only find its scientific significance in the limited epistemological limitation of the cognitive subject, which exists in the relationship between the cognitive subject and the all-encompassing scientific knowledge object. Therefore, when it comes to the object itself in ontology, it is misused. The object itself is all-encompassing, so in this sense it is omniscient (similar to the form of God); For any scientific description of such objects, the concept of opportunity or year is inappropriate. This book is very important because it contains Heisenberg's answers to Einstein's and others' criticisms of his uncertainty principle and quantum theory. When understanding this answer, we must remember two points: (1) About the above.
The relationship between experimental physical data and its theoretical concepts. (2) The difference between (a) Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity and (b) quantum mechanics. About (1), Einstein and Heisenberg, relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics are consistent. There are only about (2) places where they disagree. However, as for (2), Heisenberg and quantum physicists disagree that Einstein's reason depends on (1), which Einstein also admitted.
From /bbsanc.php? path = % 2f groups % 2f group _ 2% 2FD _ Physics % 2f xueshuyuandi % 2f 23% 2FD 488d 7728% 2fm . 99948 18。 A
4. Qin Jun in the history of China (middle)
/news/ReadNews.asp？ NewsID=265 1