Rationalism recognizes the reliability of rational knowledge and denies that rational knowledge depends on perceptual experience. It is divided into materialist rationalism and idealist rationalism. Materialist rationalism is represented by Spinoza. He admitted that laws are objective and advocated that only rationality can grasp the laws, and the object of knowledge is the objectively existing nature. Materialist rationalism is materialistic in recognizing the objectivity of the object of knowledge, that is, the objectivity of nature, and has played a progressive role in the struggle against the religious concept that belief is higher than knowledge. However, it one-sidedly exaggerates the role of reason, so it is metaphysics. , which is wrong in the overall epistemology, and will actually lead to regarding rationality as something subjective and self-generated, making concessions to idealism.

Empiricism is also translated as "empiricism". It is the symmetry of "rationalism". A theory of epistemology. He believes that perceptual experience is the only source of knowledge, and advocates that all knowledge is obtained through experience and proven in experience. There is materialist empiricism and idealist empiricism. The British philosopher Locke (1632-1704) was a representative of the materialist empiric system. He criticized the concept of innateness and believed that "all our knowledge is based on experience and ultimately comes from experience." It is advocated that experience can be divided into two categories according to its source: external experience and internal experience. The former refers to feelings, and the latter refers to introspection. Materialist empiricism is correct in its materialistic explanation of perceptual experience, and it also played a positive role in the struggle against medieval scholasticism. However, it one-sidedly exaggerates the role of perceptual experience and fails to understand the perceptual Recognizing the active leap of rational knowledge is therefore metaphysical and epistemologically wrong as a whole.