No one person on the planet is the same, which therefore means every single person’s mind will work differently. We all ‘know’ certain things to be true but how do we find a point where the belief of a certain statement or supposed fact can be seen or understood by all? Do different ways of finding the truth give more precise answers? Truth is fundamental but there are different approaches to finding it.
Truth is ‘a proven or verified statement’ , a definition that is widely known as the meaning of truth. But is this the case? An empiricist believes that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the person who believes a statement. In this case a person who has not seen first hand the said belief can not believe it to be true. A key example of this involves a tree falling in the forest when there is nobody around to hear it. Does that tree make a noise? We, as intellectual beings, know that a tree makes a noise if it falls if we are there to listen to it. An empiricist will state that no noise is made when it falls on it own as nobody is there to hear first hand the noise supposedly made by the tree. There will be no certainty that the tree makes a noise as there is no-one there to prove this. Empiricism follows the view that reason is not confirmed unless the believer has seen the experience themselves. This also includes the passing on of information. If I were to tell someone I was wearing a red top they would not believe that to be true unless they have seen it in the flesh. ‘a posteriori’ refers to truths known after experiences, a subjective view which changes from person to person. All hypotheses and theories must be tested against things in the natural world that are known to man in order to prove they are the truth. This way of knowing ensures a definite answer is given to the seeker and gives them proof and justification that the statement is true.
On the other hand a rationalist believes that reason is the source of all knowledge. Rationalism...