In chapter 6, Hergenhahn describes what the school of Rationalism was about. He contrasts it to the school of empiricism which believed that all knowledge is gained though experience, especially sensory experience (p.159). The empiricists tended to look at the mind as more of a machine which processed information received from experience (p.159). The Rationalist on the other hand believed that there was more to than this simple mechanistic line of thought. The Rationalists believed that humans possessed an active mind as opposed to the passive mind which the Empiricists believed in (p.159). This active mind operated on incoming information and gave this information meaning that it would not otherwise have. As Dr J. pointed out in lecture this is where the big difference between the rationalists and empiricists occurs. The Rationalist did not believe that sensory information alone was enough. It seems to me that the Empiricist line of thought is similar to the Behaviorists which we looked at earlier. It seems to me that they felt that the environment was the "leader" and we were just following. This kind of thinking does not appeal to me would make us seem like mere machines and slaves to the environment. The Rationalist on the other hand seems to place us in more of an active position when dealing with experience.

Hergenhahn also points out that the Rationalists believed that in "truths" which cannot be understood by simply absorbing incoming information. For example, we can never experience the concept of "all" yet we know what it is (p.175) The Rationalists believed that certain things must go though a "rational system" before these truths would become apparent (p.159). Dr. J. gave an illustration in lecture. He pointed out that a child cannot obtain language simply by being exposed to it. Dr J., like the Rationalists suggests that there must be some innate structures which allow a child to learn language, because experiments have shown that a Behavioristic approach to language accession simply does not work. This appears to be similar to the archetype which Jung theorized about. He suggested that these archetypes were innate, universal themes which affected behavior. Even animals have some instinct which affect their behavior. For example a salmon which will go back to the place it was born in order to spawn. The salmon was not taught to do this, it appears to be an inborn mechanism. In many cases it would seem that the Rationalists were on the right track. Many types of behavior cannot be attributed to sensory information alone. There must be some innate structures which affect our behavior.

Regardless of the differences that the Empiricists and Rationalists have, Hergenhahn point out that they are not polar opposites (p.160). He points out that there were some Empiricists that speculated that the mind was not passive. And the Rationalist in turn, acknowledged the importance of sensory information (p.160). The difference was in what both parties considered more important. For the empiricist, sensory information was very important and the mind just absorbed the information. For the Rationalist the mind and its rational processing was emphasized. Even Dr J. expressed his belief that there is a need for both Empiricism and Rationalism. I would agree with this idea, both have good points and neither one should be ignored in favor of the other. This would also point back to when we looked at the Puntionalists who took a pragmatic approach to determine if an idea was to be used or not.

Hergenhahn introduces the idea of Pantheism which was suggested by Spinoza. Pantheism is the belief that God is present everywhere and in everything (p.161). This is an idea which I came across while doing my term paper. My term paper dealt with the existence of God. In the book Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith discusses the idea of Pantheism.l He feels that theists, in an attempt to "naturalize" God to make God more fathomable have postulated that he exists in our natural environment or God is our natural environment. However Smith contends that in doing so the theist is trivializing God's existence (Smith, p.32). He asks why the term God is used if God is to synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe. He feels that it is just confusing and misleading. He uses the following example; if someone declared that "God" was to be used as a term synonymous with the continent of North America, this person would be seen as highly irrational (Smith, p.32). Smith contends that this is what the idea of Pantheism is doing. I tend to agree with Smith on this point. It does seem to be rather absurd that one would say that God is everywhere and is everything. To me this still does not explain anything about God, and as Smith suggests is very confusing.

Hergenhahn uses a quote from Woman which suggested that Kant lived "an uneventful life" and that he was not interested in "reaching out for the unusual (p.174)". However as Dr J. pointed out, Kant read the works of Swedenborg but he tried to hid it. This would suggest that we as students should not believe something just because it was from a text book. As in this case, much information is just lifted from previous text books. And this information. may have been incorrect in the first place. Dr. J. pointed out that Kant was the front runner in a new line of thought. Kant wanted to rid his theory of religion and mystisicm, he wanted a new science. Therefore it would make sense that Kant would dismiss Swedenborg as a madman and try to hide hi6 interest in Swedenborgian thought.

As pointed out previously, the rationalists believed that certain ideas could not be ascertained through experience alone. Kant attempted to explain where these ideas could come from if not from experience. Kant suggested the existence of categories of thought. These categories of thought are what allow us to add to our certain concepts that we could not though experience alone. Dr. J. suggested that these categories of thought are limitless, in other words, anything that we can think about can be included. Dr J. also suggests that Kant was talking about the same thing that Swedenborg was talking about in the spiritual mind. Everything that we experience here in the material world first must the spiritual world. Did Kant just reword Swedenborg's thoughts? I also wonder where animals get their instincts from. Does the spiritual world only apply to Humans?

As we have seen the Rationalists have explained many things that the Empiricists could not. However this does not mean that the Pmpiricists are to be forgotten. Both schools of thought can be used if they work. We have also seen that we cannot assume something tb be true just because it is in a text book. However I would hope that the authors of these text books check their facts before publishing them. If we can't trust a text book then who can we trust?

Back to Book Index