Chapter 2: Rationalism, Empiricism, and Faith

From Which Do We Conclude Ourselves

(Note: All Content unless otherwise cited is merely observations from a young man and should not be considered fact, only thought material.)

If the mind is the beginning of self as Descartes says then we are the dictators of knowledge, our identity and truth right? Wrong, Descartes made an excellent maxim, but it was quoted in vain many times by later philosophers like Kant and Sartre until eventually, humanism and existentialism twisted the original idea and a very selfish interpretation overtook the common definition. The pride of man is infinitely amplified in the world of self, this is dangerous.

This is the dilemma with rationalism: how can we be in our own heads but remain apart from our own pride and faults. The answer is we can’t, we are limited every day to the confines of the bodies we possess. So go outside our body instead of risking mistakes and pride and self sin lets just derive from the word in a logical manner. Empiricism, the better alternative right? Well… maybe not, empirically we observe the world and disregard some emotions, feelings, the impulses of the mind and substitute them with information. But now we are victims to a world of information that we own no control over. You see, to understand this principle you can’t think like a scientist, or a mathematician or a psychologist or a teacher. You must simply think like a child, discerning everyday decisions based on what we are given, taking grace in our failings while striving for higher standards relentlessly. A Rationalist and empiricist are not truly defined in their collection of information, but their actions from the information they consider important.

Rationalists discern that important information are facts that affect people in general, emotions that show thoughts of bystanders, and environments that may dictate the interpretation of ideas. An empiricist discerns important information as the facts that affect himself, environmental particulars, hot and cold, they assess information that leads to action such as threats and situations that require exertion, they consider other people’s reactions, what and how are people communicating.

These two principles may sound like they discern the same things however the tiny details separate these two types of thinkers.

Let me give you an example. Sally and Bob are going on a date. Bob asks her out and asks what she wants to do. Sally responds she would love to go bowling. Bob is horrible at bowling so he asks Sally to “not get mad if he performs poorly”. They meet each other there, and he walks to her car in the parking lot. She gets out and they walk in. They bowl a couple pins and Bob performs horribly, Sally laughs. They share a drink, have a conversation and then they both return home.

Here Bob is thinking like an empiricist; he’s reading data then acting he’s seeing a situation and then going with the flow. In this scenario Bob only has to perform the minimum for a date, take her out, talk and see if there’s a connection. First, it’s not at all attractive, and secondly it’s not the picture of a man who is mature and ready to provide. Let’s tackle the same scenario and rethink it from the perspective of a rationalist.

Because Bob is a rationalist he doesn’t want to sit and wait for a reaction he wants to go. Bob asks Sally out and suggests his favorite pottery place, she says that sounds fun, but she would rather go bowling. Bob responds he hasn’t learned to bowl yet and would be excited to learn with her. Before going bowling he watches bowling tutorials and asks for tips from his friends who bowl. When they arrive they walk in together because Bob picked Sally up at her house. He opens the door for her and they continue into the venue. As they bowl Bob shocks Sally with his skill, he is humble and states genuinely beginners luck. After a few rounds he gets her a drink and starts talking about Sally and her life. Afterwards he drops her back off at her house, says good-bye respectfully and goes home. Bob evaluates Sally and lists the things he likes about her in a journal along with details about her life and profession so he can be ready on the second date.

Lets analyze the differences here, doesn’t rationalism sound more attractive, invested and mature. If you don’t agree with those assertions then I’m sure you can at least settle on the observation that Bob as a rationalist is more energetic or type A. This is the significant difference that rationalism and empiricism have on our daily lives. Rationalist Bob planned ahead, suggested a venue, picked her up, walked her to the door, impressed her with his skills, took the compliment humbly, was interested in her, made an effort to remember what she likes, and safely transported her. The difference is insane, without even really meeting these characters you can tell which one you would like to hang out with.

But why did rationalism and empiricism make such a difference?

Rationalism and empiricism in a very simplistic summary are alike to the concept of yin and yang, one promotes pro-action the other reaction, one promotes invention the other discovery, one promotes identity the other community, one promotes truth the other knowledge, one promotes discernment, the other observation. But if this is how they differ then how does every person fall into one of these categories.

Before rationalists and empiricists have donned many different names, type A, extrovert, introvert, active, passive, proactive, reactive, leaders, followers, secure, insecure. The common denominator is a difference in thought order based on the consideration of identity.

Identity is a hard concept for humans to define but while its nature may be vague its existence and its residence should be clear to the self actualized. One of the most self harming philosophies, when it comes to identity, is existentialism with its claim that existence proceeds essence. But, what does that mean? It means that what we are, is more influential than who we are. This philosophy places the responsibility of identity on the physical self. In existentialism you create yourself and find your own purpose. However this is no foundation to stand on, empiricists who stand on this principle become wrecks of self esteem with their sense of self being pulled here and there because of their reactive observations. With existentialism as your guide to identity you will never be more than the combinations of your experiences. This creates a very victim focused and post thought mentality which states “how could I be anything different from X (variable replacement for bad circumstances) its what I grew up with.” Existentialism’s lie is that you will be better and satisfied when you give yourself complete power over your life and purpose. This statement is not true.

True rationalists would not make this assumption, though rationalists are the most susceptible to existentialism’s enticing lie through a self conscious purpose. A rationalist mind set would understand a separation of self and the world because they already make a distinction between the world and their mind. True rationalists will dive deeper still and separate their identity from their mind realizing that “I think therefore I am,” becomes circular and contradictory when applied to identity. (I think therefore I am, so I am, therefore I think, but I do not always think my own thoughts, so I am not always myself?). No, you must ask the most important question any person can ask, “who am I if I am not the results and principles of my thoughts and actions?” If this question is reasoned with care and healthy skepticism the inquirer will be humbled and grateful for the gifts of life, knowledge and love. He will understand that many of the things he can commonly attribute to himself are not created in the self but given taught or discovered through generous encounters. But again, they will eventually ask “who is the giver of these transcendental values?” Because ultimately a healthy rationalist understanding of identity is rooted in who or what we attribute the title of God.

For a Christian the puzzle of identity fits perfectly. We are not the makers of our identity, we are the recipients of a purpose crafted by a higher power who knows what is best for us. We are not on a journey to discover ourselves, we are on a journey to discover Christ who will reveal and guide our steps to virtue. We are pro-active in love and humility because we were made to be like the one who wrote us. We observe things differently because we seek to converse with the true, good, and beautiful parts of reality distinct from sin. We reason not to confirm our existence but to be grounded by his truth.

This is a strong identity that can only be shaken by doubting your faith in God, and faith is the most mystical thing in the whole process because it is the most unconfirmed, undeniable, unexplainable, unbelievably strong override for everything that humans may reason. Which makes faith the most powerful and dangerous resource in all human knowledge. Indeed faith is the most powerful of the mental tools, it can be used as a threat such as in the Q’uran and Islam: Surah 3:151: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.” Surah 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them … kill them.” Such is the recompense of the disbelievers,” or it can be the strongest binder in communities such as in churches and temples.

This idea actually stems from one of the most misunderstood philosophers, the Danish gadfly Soren Kierkegaard. Most people mis-title him as the father of existentialism due to his theories on epistemology leaning on the faith, total truth and absolute freedom. He has two maxims that are legendary but one was taken out of context. The first of his ideas was summarized as “faith beyond reason” the second was “anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.” Many people like Karl Marx took the latter maxim out of context and wrote hard pragmatist ideas classes and humans viewed as tools. Kierkegaard’s reasoning is as follows, when making decision we have absolute freedom of choice, we realize that we hold the ultimate decision of doing nothing or anything, our minds cannot fathom all the power benefits or consequences of these decisions, so dread naturally accompanies this mantle of responsibility therefore anxiety is the dizziness of freedom. The non stoics then stepped in and said well anxiety is definitely a bad thing so we should obviously just remove freedom, enter every dictator ever. Then a more deceptive attack reared its head when people started taking faith beyond reason out of context by assuming that faith overrides reason so reason isn’t as important as what you do and what you make yourself to believe in. Basically this was the beginning of the assumption that our existence precedes essence. Because from a base level assumptive Kirkaguard perspective, who we are leads to anxiety and our values are always overridden by our blind faith anyway.

However this is a rash overstep of pragmatists. With more background on Kierkegaard encouraged from rationalism a better understanding of what he meant emerges. Soren was a Christian who was on fire for God and wanted to revive Socratic discourse in the Danish countries. He was really more of an apologist than a philosopher, but eventually like every evangelistic effort you eventually run into the beliefs of other people. Kierkegaard formulated his first maxim based on the many many conversations he had with people, eventually finding that people have blind faith in many things they can’t prove. He thought it was fascinating the same thing that could harden our hearts could keep us grounded on our beliefs. He then said we should have faith beyond reason, but the underlying principle also assumes that reason will allow us to apply our faith to any medium while being apart from ourselves, essentially creating the strong identity I mentioned before. We separate our identity by classifying it as something related to faith and God while our reason acts as the conscious barrier between the world and who we are. They are not separated like existentialism asserts; instead they are distinct from each other and thus are protected by doubt from the mind and dogma from faith. Kierkegaard’’s second maxim was simply a compassionate understanding of the age-old apologetic dilemma. It is hard to change our beliefs and change our actions because those are the decisions that matter… a lot. But that’s exactly why we need to make those decisions because we overcome the dizziness and change our actions to grow into new freedom, faith and a better understanding of self.

So in a comedic irony, the most destructive parts of an empirical perspective were actually conceived from a poor practice of its very principles. All these foundational views stemming from a simple change in epistemological perspective.

This Chapter, in a maxim would conclude as follows:

Our Identity must be given by God and then reasoned by men.