




































EXCLUSIVE RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM: A DISSERVICE TO THE 

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE 

Stephen Timothy AKPAN & Michael BENEDICT 

 

Abstract 

Philosophy is specifically understood as speculative science. That is to say that it is a 

science that seeks the truth for the sake of the truth or knowledge for the sake of 

knowledge. There are two major and parallel poles in the theory of this knowledge the 

rationalism and empiricism. This study intends to show that the two traditional sources of 

knowledge can be used in strengthening each other rather than engage in mutual 

exclusivism. It is a fact that everything has a beginning but it is unfortunate to take the 

beginning as an end to itself. It is more unfortunate to take the continuation as the 

beginning and end. Empirical knowledge ought to be seen as the beginning of knowledge 

and rationalism as the continuation of knowledge. Both should constitute true and 

universal knowledge. In reality, it is often difficult to have a one- way satisfying or 

universal truth without assistance from other areas. There are various methods of 

interpretation of the bible but none is self-sufficient, it is always required that other 

methods be diligently applied as well for authentic interpretation. The paper using the 

analytic method posit that the position that one method is sufficient in giving us the 

absolute explanations to all the problems and acquisition of knowledge as the exponents of 

rationalism and empiricism want us to believe. The use of the two major themes to give us 

relatively sure source of knowledge is a conditio sine qua non. This title suggests other 

nomenclatures such as, absolute rationalism/empiricism and radical 

rationalism/empiricism. They designate the position that excludes the other, and 

tenaciously hold on to one without respect or reference to the other. This paper concludes 

that we need the senses and we need reason. The combination of these with proper 

interpretation and understanding, gives adequate and better knowledge, after all, two good 

heads are better than one! 

Keywords: Philosophy, Exclusivism, Rationalism, Empiricism 

 

1. Introduction 

The concept philosophy cannot be given one precise definition that captures its subject 

matter. This is because various definitions capture different context as well as different 

purposes. Philosophy etymologically is commonly known as the love of wisdom or the 

study of wisdom. This concept is rooted down to the Greek words of Philos (love) and 

Sophia (wisdom). And as such philosophy does not only seek knowledge for personal 

gains, it endeavours to seek wisdom which consists in the ability to draw meaning from 

experience, to judge experience wisely. For Immanuel Kant, philosophy is a critical 

activity, as critical activity it involves the examination of ideas we live by, this definition 



Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 

arises from Socrates, it is a reflective self-examination of principles just and happy life.  

By these definitions philosophy is the study of general and fundamental concerning 

matters  of  human  existence.  Udoidem  describes  philosophy  as  ―a  one  million  naira 

question that is often asked by both the most learned and the unlearned of our society. Yet, 

ever since the question was raised thousands of years ago, it is still being asked today, and 

the answers received have been as unsatisfactory as they were at the first moment when it 

was first asked‖ (Udoidem, 1992, p. 1). For Wittgenstein, philosophy is, I know not what. 

For Socrates, it is a reflective self-examination of principles of the just and happy life, and 

for Kant, it is the articulation of the spirit of the age (Udoidem, 1992). 
 

This is a show of the difficulty of a universal definition; however, according to Omoregbe 

(2017), the following are possible definitions: 
 

(1) Philosophy is a rational search for the answers to the questions that arise in the mind when 
we reflect on human experience 

(2) Philosophy is a rational search for answers to the basic questions about the ultimate 

meaning of reality as a whole and of human life in particular (p. 3). 
 

Epistemology is one of the major branches in philosophy. The term epistemology is 

derived from two Greek words, ―episteme‖ which means ―knowledge‖ and ―logos‖ which 

means logic or rationale. However, according to Everit and Fisher (1995), in 

contemporary usage, it has come to mean theory of knowledge. What then is knowledge? 

There are three ways of looking at the question what knowledge is. First we have capacity 

knowledge which is referred to as knowledge know how. This type of knowledge refers to 

the ability of the individual knowing how to do something. For instance, knowing how to 

put on the television, radio, how to drive a car. 
 

The second type of knowledge is knowledge by acquaintance. This type of knowledge 

deals with the kind of knowledge of what exist in space and time, for example you can 

know a country, a building, a river or a painting. The third type of knowledge is 

propositional knowledge. In propositional knowledge, knowledge is defined as Justified 

Truth Belief. That is for any piece of information to be called knowledge it must satisfied 

these three conditions which are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for any 

knowledge claims. For example, to make statement that A knows P, it means that for the 

truth of 
 

A knows that P. they are: 
 

1. P is true 
2. A believes that P 
3. If A can justify that it is P. 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

The first condition, is called the truth condition, it states that you cannot know that 

something is true if in fact it is false. To know that p means that P must be true for 

example I know that Lokoja is the capital of Kogi State, it will be false to say that Lokoja 

is not the capital. The second condition, the condition that A believes that P. The fact that 

A belives P requires explanation. It is possible for A to know that Makurdi is the capital of 

Benue state. But that the knowledge A has comes from uncertain source. The concept 

believe only signifies that the source of knowledge could be faulty, which means that our 

knowledge could be inclusive. However, epistemically believe stands for the fact that the 

strength of conviction still remains undetermined by the second condition. The third 

condition A justifies that P. the third and final condition is stipulating , that is, the 

requirement of knowledge is that it must justified here our believe about our statement of 

fact that Makurdi is the capital of Benue State is justified because it left the level of 

believe to justification of the fact the statement is true. 
 

There are two schools of thought in epistemology, these schools disagree on the source 

our knowledge while, while the empiricist contend that it is derived from sense perception, 

the rationalist argue that it is generated from reason. The outstanding disagreement 

existing among rationalists and empiricists is within the revered area of epistemology. A 

branch of philosophy dedicated to the study of the nature, sources and limits of human 

knowledge. The distinguishing questions in epistemology include: 
 

1. What is the nature of human knowledge? 
 

2. How can we gain knowledge? 
 

3. What are the limits to our knowledge? (Markie, 2004, August 19). 
 

The dispute between these two epistemic schools emanates from the second question, 

namely, how can we gain knowledge? This disagreement leads them to give opposing 

opinions and even to regard the position of the other as nihilistic. 
 

Epistemology is derived from the Greek episteme, and logos, word or explanation. ―It is a 

branch of philosophy and chiefly concerned with the justification of knowledge- 

possibility‖ (Agede, 2019, p. 34). It is an enquiring into what can be known and how it can 

be known (Kenny, 2004, p. 145). In line with this, Akpen (2018, p. 24) summarizes it as 

―the branch of philosophy concerned with enquiry into the nature, sources and validity of 

knowledge‖. There has always been in the study of epistemology a conflicting relationship 

between the rationalist and the empiricist, with each claiming to have the surest and only 

true way to knowledge. This position is confirmed in the works of the various exponents 

of both rationalism and empiricism. While the rationalists would say that knowledge is 

innate, that is inborn, the empiricists would say that there is nothing in the mind that was 



Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 

not first experienced, that is, everything comes from experience. There is no doubt that 

there are similarities between rationalism and empiricism despite the controversy. Both 

make attempts to answer the fundamental questions of the theory of Knowledge, namely, 

what is knowledge? What can we know? How do we have it? When do we know it? There 

are certain knowledge that humans possess that are a priori, that is, without experience 

and there are certain knowledge that humans possess that are a posteriori, that is 

experienced based. In my opinion, the acceptance of the opposing views by each will be 

beneficial to Epistemology in particular and philosophy in general. In view of this, this 

paper studies this topic under the following subtopics: The Basic Arguments of 

Rationalism and Empiricism, Positive Values of Rationalism and Empiricism in 

Philosophy, Areas of Disservice and a conclusion. 

 

2. Basic Arguments of Rationalism and Empiricism 

The argument of the origin of knowledge has given birth to two outstanding and important 

schools of thought, namely, (a) that which concerns itself with the question of whether 

knowledge is innate, that is, present in the mind at birth therefore when the time is due, the 

ideas spring up naturally and (b) that which concerns itself with the question whether 

knowledge is empirical, that is, acquired through experience or sense perception, which 

means nothing is in the mind, one needs experience before anything is known. These have 

been of major concern for a long time not only in philosophy but in linguistics and 

psychology (Martinich and Stroll, 2020, October, 12). The two outstanding schools of 

thought are outlined thus: rational source of knowledge or rationalism and empirical 

source of knowledge or empiricism. 

 

3. Rationalism 

This is a philosophical position whose basic teaching on its source of knowledge holds 

that true knowledge can only be gotten through reasoning. This can also be called 

intellectualism. They hold that every human is born with certain basic ideas in his mind 

and that these basic ideas are known immediately and spontaneously as soon as a man 

reaches the age of reason without having to learn them. Both Plato and Descartes maintain 

that true knowledge is already within us in the nature of innate ideas, which we do not 

acquire but are born within (Popkin and Stroll, 1993, p. 203), and the process of learning 

begins with these basic ideas known as innate. They believe and teach that a 

fundamentally important kind of knowledge can be achieved a priori, that is, 

independently of sensory experience (Bruce, 2008, p. 23). The exponents of this school of 

thought such as Rene Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz ignore experience as a source of true 

knowledge and emphasize the role of reason in order to attend clear and certain 

knowledge. For them, reason alone, using the mathematical method, can attend clear and 

certain knowledge without reference to experience (Omoregbe, Knowing Philosophy, 

2018, p. 140). This position has the backing of Popkin and Stroll who had previously 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

called this theory ‗rationalistic‘ due to the fact that their fidelity to a particular procedure 

of reason alone, one can attain knowledge in its strongest sense, a type of knowledge that 

cannot under any circumstances possibly be false. All rationalistic theories maintain that 

we cannot find any absolute certain knowledge in sense experience but have to seek for it 

only in the realm of the mind. It is again sustained that the only real and certain world is 

what is known through rationalistic procedures and all others known outside this realm are 

illusory or unreal or still, unimportant world (p. 203). 
 

The rationalists develop their arguments in two ways. (a) They argue passionately that 

there are instances where our knowledge is not or cannot be explained by the senses of 

touch, sight, feeling, smell and hearing (b) They argue that at such lapses or deficiency, 

reason supplies what is lacking (Markie, 2004, August 19). To be identified as a 

rationalist, Markie asserts that one must accept one or all the following positions: 
 

a) Intuition or Deductive Argument: This is a form of rational insight which the rationalists 
defend and the possibility of reducing from what is known to be there already. 

b) Innate knowledge Argument: Knowledge coming as part of our nature. 

c) The Innate Concept Argument: Meaning that some of the concepts we use are derived 

from our rational nature and never from experience. These concepts are essential to the 

rationalists (Markie, 2004, August 19). 

 

3.1 Arguments against Rationalism 

It is clear that Empiricism emerged as a reaction against the position of the rationalists 

who still hold that innate knowledge is real and the only sure or certain source of 

knowledge. The skeptical opponents of the rationalists holds that, what the rationalists are 

offering the theory of knowledge as a source of knowledge is merely personal fantasies 

and mere beliefs taken much more seriously by those who held it. What they are talking 

about is neither visible nor tangible and the existence of such world and knowledge does 

not make sense for many except those who hold them, therefore, such world and 

knowledge are not real (Popkin and Stroll, 1993, p. 203). 
 

The debate of the contemporary time made initial appearance and manifestation in the 

work of John Locke, namely, Essay: Concerning Human Understanding. The interest of 

Locke with this polemics was to discredit innatism and give credence to sense perception 

as the only true source of knowledge. Locke‘s arguments in debunking rationalism are in 

two folds (a) that their evidence or arguments were not arguments at all and (b) that even 

if they were granted for the sake of argument, their own account (empiricist) was to be 

preferred since it was simple and in accord with experience. Locke‘s criticism is found in 

the Chapter II of his Essay. He criticizes the possibility of innate theoretical principles. 

This argument is captured in three sentences: (a) if in fact there are any innate principles, 



Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 

then everyone would assent to them (b) There are no innate principles that everyone assent 

to (c) therefore, there are no innate principles (Lock, 2020, November, 5). 
 

His objection is based on the fact that there are no principles that enjoy universal 

acceptance. He supported his point with two philosophical principles (a) principle of 

identity which says that: what is, (b) the principle of non-contradiction which says, 

nothing can be and not be at the same time. For the idea of God he says it is unlikely to be 

innate, since many cultures in the world recognize no god (Lamprecht, 1956, p. 100-101). 

In all these Locks argument is simple, it is impossible for a thing to be in the mind without 

its being conscience of its existence. 
 

Other criticisms have been advanced in recent times against rationalism. According to the 

empiricists, advancing on the argument simplicity introduced by Lock, William of 

Ockham has a principle in philosophy expressed in Latin thus: Entia non sunt 

multiplicandapraeternecessitatem.  Meaning,  ―entities  are  not  to  be  multiplied  beyond 

necessity‖ (Mautner, 2015, p. 440). Using Ockham‘s Razor, Yount (2020, December 9) 

argues that when deciding between competing theories that explain the same phenomena, 

the simpler theory is better. Empiricism is simpler, therefore, it is the better theory. Again, 

Advancement in Science has added to the argument. Much of science is founded on 

empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it. If we base our conclusions 

about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see 

our mistakes. The rationalists do not have this to offer. 

 

4. Empiricism 

The English term empirical is derived from the Ancient Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is a 

translation of the Latin experientia, from which the words experience and experiment are 

derived. In philosophy, the term is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or 

primarily from sensory experience (Mautner, 2015, p. 186). It is one of the outstanding 

themes in epistemology, and emphasizes the role of observable evidence in the formation 

of  ideas.  Empiricism  has  been  identified  with  the  ―blank  slate‖  concept-  tabula  rasa, 

which  designates  the  fact  that  the  human  mind  is  ―blank‖  at  birth  and  develops  ideas 

through experience alone. In the opinion of the empiricists, learning is observation based 

while perception and knowledge are not possible without experience. 
 

Empiricism is a philosophical postulation which teaches that only or at least the most 

reliable source of human knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the 

physical senses. For them, knowledge is gotten through sense perception. This is a direct 

opposite of the rationalist school. They object to anything like innate ideas in the mind of 

man at birth and maintain that all knowledge and all ideas come from experience. Man is 

not born with any idea the human mind at birth is blank. They hold that all knowledge 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence


Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

begin from experience and emphasize the indispensable role of sense experience as the 

foundation of knowledge (Omoregbe, 2018). There are three types of empiricism, namely, 

Classical, Radical and Moderate empiricism. Classical Empiricism states that there is no 

such thing as innate or in-born knowledge. Radical empiricism holds that our knowledge 

is solely on our senses. What is not experienced via our senses, exist not. They reject 

religious beliefs since they are not verifiable through the evidence of the senses. Moderate 

Empiricism maintains just as others that our experiences are founded on our senses; 

however, there are instances where our knowledge is not based on our senses. To this 

clause of moderation, they offer no explanation as to the alternative knowledge. 

 

4.1 Weakness of Empiricism 
The defenders of rationalism have also advanced very useful arguments against the empiricist and 

in support of rationalism. Mathematics and  Logic are for instance inevitably Innate. They are true 

not because of our five senses, but because of reason‘s ability to connect ideas. Morality again is 

Innate: How do we get to know what is right or wrong, our five senses? No. We cannot experience 

things like justice, human rights, moral duties, moral good and evil with our five senses. What can the 

empiricists say about this? (Yount, 2020, December 9). There are other arguments that the 

empiricists have actually not been able to sustain with their doctrine of sense perception. For them 

it is only what has been experienced that can constitute knowledge. By implication, it means that 

knowledge will be relative. Relative in the sense that what one has not experienced does not exist 

or is not knowledge at all. This will introduce minimalism into the revered area of knowledge and 

minimize the scope of knowledge. 

 

Perception is not universal, that is to say that what a person perceives as true can be false 

for another person. Again, perception is also affected by external factors: the same 

experiment under different conditions (temperature for example) can give different results, 

unbeknownst to the careless researcher. Age and health conditions can affect the way one 

perceives things (TasosVossos, 2020, November 1). In the classification of empiricism, 

moderate empiricism holds that our experience is founded on our senses; however, there 

are instances where our knowledge is not based on our senses. What is their true 

explanation to this? Are they now in support of rationalism? This seems to introduce 

division into their camp. The position that the mind is a tabula raza has not been favorable 

to the empiricists and their doctrine. It raises question of how one can have knowledge of 

what he has not seen or experienced before. For some who have not seen a lion before, 

they should not think of a lion existing. God has not been seen or experienced by the 

senses by anyone. How do they explain the existence of God? For George Berkley, an 

Anglican Bishop and an empiricist, God exist; how did he genuinely come to the 

knowledge that God exist while he has not experienced him with his senses? They have to 

explain too, especially George Berkley, how abstract ideas exist, such as, (a) the idea of 

good (b) heaven (c) hell (d) world after this world, etc. How are general concepts possible 



Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 

too since we don‘t experience or see them? The word humankind exist yet we have not 

seen it, what we see are men and women (Martinich and Stroll, 2020, October, 12). 
 

Another interesting answer still awaiting the empiricists to give is the explanation to 

natural law. It is a fact that there is a permanent underlining basis of all things. The 

Ancient Greece philosophers believe that there is a perfect justice given to humanity by 

nature which all positive laws should conform to as close as possible (Martin and Law, 

2006,  p.  351).  This  they  call  natural  law,  and  refers  to  ―the  sum  of  those  universally 

binding moral principles that can be discerned through reason‖ (Nwabude, 2008, p. 130). 

To deny this means that the empiricist do not believe in the law of nature and to believe in 

the law of nature and still deny the importance of reason is another disservice to 

knowledge. 

 
5. Positive Values of Rationalism and Empiricism in Philosophy 

Positive value in philosophy means constructive rather than destructive. It is applied to 

things or qualities which are good, desirable and worthwhile. In its nature, it gears towards 

what is good or laudable, progress, success, etc. Empiricism has always been recognized 

as an indispensable part of the scientific method. This is so because theories and 

hypotheses ought to be observed and tested in order to be considered correct. Empiricists 

argue that nothing can be known for certain and, therefore, they do not believe in dogmas 

or absolute truths. Both views, that is, empiricism and rationalism contribute immensely to 

the growth of philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. 
 

Rationalism and empiricism are two distinct philosophical approaches to 

understanding the world around us. They are often contrasted with each 

other, as their approach to knowledge is completely different. Empiricists 

believe that we learn about our world through our previous experience, 

while for rationalists, reason is the basis of understanding anything. Both 

views can help someone attain knowledge ((TasosVossos, 2020, November 

1). 
 

Rationalism believes in the use of reason. It provides philosophy with the search for 

reason why objects exist or whey certain things happen. For the rationalists, the fact that 

an object comes back to the ground when thrown upwards is not because a million people 

have observed so but because there is a reason for it to happen, that is, the law of gravity. 

Rationalism provides epistemology with deep knowledge and search for reasons in 

reality(TasosVossos, 2020, November 1). 
 

Questioning the nature of things for authentication is one of the values of empiricism 

because it makes sure that philosophy does not accept anything such as dogmas. One of 

the benefits of empiricism to both philosophy and the theory of knowledge is that it is 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

simple, real and practical. These are the characteristics of empiricism. This is so because it 

is not difficult to observe that cars use more fuel and energy to climb hills, infants grow to 

become adults and eventually die, objects thrown up will come down on its own, morning 

is followed by afternoon and then evening, etc. These are some of the things that we do 

not need extra grace and intelligence to interpret; they are observable, practical and easy. 

 

6. Areas of Disservice 

In Philosophy as a whole, service has been identified as helpful actions, actions performed 

to assist, lead toward a greater height or to contribute positively. Disservice on the other 

hand is understood and interpreted in many fronts as actions that cause harm or difficulty. 

O‘Colins  Gerald  &Farugia  Edward  (2000)  describes  it  in  brief  as  ―harmful  action‖. 

Common areas that emphasize the division between rationalists and empiricists disservice 

includes: 

 
 

6.1 Relativism 

Sophists have generally been identified as the founders of relativism in Western 

philosophy. Indications of this emerged in the 5th century BC and Protagoras is said to 

have coined the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they 

are, and of things which are not, that they are not." Plato popularized this term in a 

paraphrase from his dialogue Protagoras: "What is true for you is true for you, and what is 

true for me is true for me" (William and Lewis, p. 28). Roughly put, is the view that truth 

and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are 

products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is 

confined to the context giving rise to them (Baghramian and Carter, 2020, 15
th

 

November). 

 

Relativism belongs to the family of philosophical views that negates objectivity and holds 

that facts are not absolute but relative to the persons or groups that are holding them. The 

summary of it is that there are no absolute truths and values; they are determined by 

periods, cultures, societies and persons (O‘Colins&Farugia, 2000. p. 224). To believe in 

relativism means that various people can have diverged opinions about issues and it is 

correct for them. Simply put, relativism can be understood in this philosophical saying 

―different  strokes  for different  folks.  This  is  the  idea that  what  is  good  or  bad,  right  or 

wrong, true or false, is so for different people‖. Relativism in all its strands is the denial of 

absolute truth. Things are true to individuals or cultures based on their perspectives. This 

is already a weak spot on the theory of knowledge in particular and philosophy in general. 

If what is true for Mr. A is not true for Mr. B, or what is true in one culture is not in 

another, can we truly say that we know? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Christ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras_(dialogue)


Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 
6.2 Disparity among Epistemologists 

Acquisition of knowledge has been the focus of philosophers and the contention among 

epistemologists. From the time of the Ionian fathers, philosophers were out to discover the 

constitutive element of things. The emergence of the Sophists gave birth to epistemology, 

where the focus was changed from cosmology to man and the society (Omoregbe, 2017, p. 

60). The primary mission of Epistemologists has been to unravel the secrets of knowledge, 

to make knowledge available and accessible to all. In doing this, they follow different 

paths and these paths ultimately ought to lead to the same destination, namely, 

knowledge/wisdom. The treatment of each adherent of the opposing side and position as 

meaningless and unimportant creates a bigger problem, that is, a division among people 

who are out to solve the same problem. The challenge is, if we cannot get people who are 

trying to lead us to true knowledge to unite, what will be the value of what they are 

teaching? If they discredit others, how can they sustain their veracity? 

 
6.3 It Demeans Creativity 

To demean is to undermine the status, dignity or value of something. Creativity has been 

encouraged in all areas of life as the capacity to invent or create something. It is often a 

brain work and a result of deep reflection. It is true that there could be instances where 

senses come to help but a greater percentage of assistance will always come from the use 

of reason otherwise it will not be called creativity. The separation of the two sources of 

knowledge will definitely undermine the power of creativity. Exclusive empiricism is a 

disservice to epistemology as it denies the effort to invent. Again, it presents humans as 

incapable of reasoning. This makes it appear as if they can only receive what they 

experience, therefore, are fully controllable and manipulatable. This is made possible by 

the claim that it is only what we see that works therefore we rely only on what we see and 

not what we can reason out. This limits our knowledge in the first place, clampdown on us 

in our effort to reason out of our problems. That is to say, therefore a solution that has not 

been experienced or known through the senses does not exist. 

 

7. Conclusion 

The controversy has been between the Rationalist claiming that knowledge is innate and 

the Empiricists claiming that knowledge is derived from experience or sense perception of 

touch, smell, sight, feeling and hearing. However, the innate idea and the sense perception 

experience are valid ways of gaining knowledge. If any is taken as sacrosanct and the 

other discarded, true knowledge may not be achieved. In our view, both schools are 

complementary. There are no exhaustive arguments to show that there are no innate ideas 

and there are no exhaustive arguments to show that we cannot gain knowledge through 

experience. Therefore, we have to be cautious with the way we stretch either side so as not 

to fall into skepticism as both the empiricists and the rationalists have tried to by denying 

the existence of others. Certain ideas are innate and knowledge can also be gained through 

the senses, however, we must be careful since the senses are not static, they change. Our 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

sense of perception can also be deceptive depending on our state of mind. Finally, we need 

the senses and we need our reason to be relatively sure of what we know. The combination 

of these with proper interpretation and understanding, gives adequate and true knowledge, 

after all, two good heads are better than one. Rationalism is a good head, Empiricism is a 

good head, let us use them well for the sake of knowledge. 



Akpan & Benedict Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

 
References 

Agede, A. K. (2019) ―Branches of Philosophy‖ in Agundu, T. O. (Ed.), Critical Issues in 

Philosophy, Logic and Human Existence. Abuja: DonAfrique Publishers. 

Akpen,  T.T.  (2018)  ―The  Main  Branches  of  Philosophy‖inIhuah,  A.S  (Ed.),  Philosophy 

and Logic for Beginners. Makurdi: Obeta Continental Press. 

Baghramian,  Maria  and  Carter,  A.  J.  (2020,  November  15)  ―Relativism‖  Edward  N. 

Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020 Edition), 

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/relativism. 
Bruce Anne. An Empiricist Theory of knowledge. Revised 3/11/2009. 

Essien Augustus (2019) ―Philosophy as the Servant of Truth and Justice‖ Philosophy and Praxis: 

Journal of the Nigeria Philosophical Association (NPA)Vol. 9., 53-67. 

Everit  ,  N.  and  Fisher,  P.  (2002)  ―The  Analysis  of  Knowledge‖  in  Michael  Huemer  (Ed.), 

Epistemology: Contemporary Reading. London: Routledge. 

Kenny, A. (2004) Ancient Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Lamprecht, Sterling P. (1956) Locke Selections. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons. 

Lock,  John. (2020, November 5)―Essay Concerning Human Understanding.‖ 

https//www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/lockessay/section2. 

Markie,   P.   (2020,   December   9)   ―Rationalism   vs.   Empiricism.‖   Retrieved   from 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism. 

Martin and Law, (Ed.) (2006) A Dictionary of Law, (6
th

Edition). Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 
Martinich and Stroll. (2020, October 12) ―Epistemology: Philosophy‖ Retrieved from 

https://www.britanica.com. 

Mautner, T. (2005). Dictionary of Philosophy, (2
nd

 Edition). London: Penguin Books. 

Nwabude, E. (2008) An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Canon Law of the Western (CIC 

1983) Church and Western (CCEO 1990) Churches. Onitsha: Africana. 
O‘Colins, G. &Farugia E. (2000) A Concise Dictionary of Theology. New York: T&T Clark. 

Omoregbe, J. (2018) Knowing Philosophy. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers. 

   (2017) Epistemology, Theory of Knowledge: A Systematic and Historical Study. 

Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers. 

Popkin Richard and Avrum Stroll (1993) Philosophy Made Simple, (2
nd

 Edition). New York: 

Three Rivers Press. 

TasosVossos. (2020, November 1) ―Advantages & Disadvantages of Rationalism & Empiricism.‖ 

Retrieved from https://classroom.synonym.com/advantages-disadvantages-positivism- 

12088541.html. 

Udoidem, S. I. (1992) Understanding Philosophy. Lagos: African Heritage Research and 

Publications. 

William S. S. and Lewis, M. S.(1993).Ideas of The Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble 

Publishing. 

Yount,    D.J.    (2020,    December    9)    ―Empiricism    V.    Rationalism.‖ Retrieved    from 

https://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/empm-v-ratm.html 

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/lockessay/section2
http://www.britanica.com/
https://classroom.synonym.com/advantages-disadvantages-positivism-12088541.html
https://classroom.synonym.com/advantages-disadvantages-positivism-12088541.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vi7cQMw8SwYC&q=Protagoras%2BPlato%2B%22what%2Bis%2Btrue%2Bfor%2Byou%22&pg=PA28
http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/empm-v-ratm.html


 


