Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Nativism vs. Empericism: Plato vs. Aristotle
Many fields have had their roots in philosophy, one of which is psychology. Two basic ways if thinking are shown in psychology, from philosophy: Nativism and Epericism.
Nativism is the way Plato thought in the Greek era. It is when one believes that we are born with all the knowledge of the world aready inside of us and we just have to search for the answers internally, not relying on experiences.
Empericism is the second way of thinking and is also how Aristotle viewed knowledge. Empericism is the view that we are born a blank slate with no knowledge whatsoever and that we must learn everything that we know through our past experiences.
Both ways of thinking might apeal to many people, but personally, i do not wholly follow either one. I would like to believe that all we have to do is search inside ourselves for all the kniwledge we will ever need, but that seems illogical to me. On the other hand i do not conpletely believe that everything we kmow comes from past experiences because that would leace no explanation for natural ability. If we were a blank slate at birth, then how come some things come more naturally to some people than to others? In regards to nativism if we are all born with knowledge, why doesn't everything come naturally to everyone? Which do you believe more in, Nativism or Empericism?