Research Paper on:
Knowledge of Humanity, Empiricism vs. Rationalism

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Descartes rationalistic format as compared with Berkeleys empiricist approach finds that while both philosophers deserve worthy admiration for their conjecture, only one can be considered the most valid. Bibliography  lists 4 sources. TLCrashn.rtf RATIONALISTS VERSUS EMPIRICISTS by (c) October 2001 paper properly!  Rationalists maintain that humanitys knowledge of the external world (if any) is not justified solely upon the basis of input received from  the senses; empiricists, in contrast, maintain that mankinds knowledge of the external world (if any) is justified solely upon the basis of input received from our senses. Examining Descartes  rationalistic format as compared with Berkeleys empiricist approach finds that while both philosophers deserve worthy admiration for their conjecture, only one can be considered the most valid. "Philosophy is  to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for  the sake of the questions themselves" (Perry et al 12). Berkeleys Philonous argues that to be is, therefore, to be perceived - that  matter does not exist independently of perception. Inasmuch as philosophy is nothing other than the contemplation of wisdom and truth, Philonous surmised that those who have invested both time  and pains in its postulations should partake of a greater tranquillity of mind, a more significant clarity and testimony of knowledge, as well as harbor fewer doubts and difficulties than  those who do not seek its enlightenment. PHILONOUS: How say you, Hylas, can you see a thing which is at the same time unseen? HYLAS No, that were