




































57 

 

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 arises from Socrates, 

it is a reflective self-examination of principles just and happy life. By these 



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

58 

 

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.  



Akpan & Benedict                                              Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

59 

 

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 



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

60 

 

there is nothing in the mind that was 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 



Akpan & Benedict                                              Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

61 

 

Stroll who had previously 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 



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

62 

 

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, 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 multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. 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 

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


Akpan & Benedict                                              Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

63 

 

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 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 (Tasos Vossos, 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?  



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

64 

 

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 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 ((Tasos Vossos, 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(Tasos Vossos, 2020, November 1). 



Akpan & Benedict                                              Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

65 

 

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 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, 15th 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)


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

66 

 

 

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. 



Akpan & Benedict                                              Exclusive Rationalism and Empiricism … 

67 

 

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 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. 

 

 

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”in Ihuah, 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, (6thEdition). Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Martinich and Stroll. (2020, October 12) “Epistemology: Philosophy” Retrieved 

from https://www.britanica.com. 

Mautner, T. (2005). Dictionary of Philosophy, (2nd Edition). London: Penguin 

Books. 



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

68 

 

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, (2nd Edition). 

New York: Three Rivers Press. 

Tasos Vossos. (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. 

 

 

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+Plato+%22what+is+true+for+you%22&pg=PA28

