Part I: In this essay, I will be defending the theory of rationalism. 1. If we know a proposition is true, then justification comes from reason alone.
2. We know that analytic propositions are true. Therefore, justification for knowledge of analytic propositions comes from reason alone.
I believe premise 1 is true because we can know something through reason, because reason is
not an illusion, but we cannot know that something simply by experiencing it through our senses,
because our senses can deceive us. For example, what one perceives to be an oasis in the middle
of a dessert might turn out to be a mirage. …show more content…
One of the overall
advantages of this theory is that it escapes the threat of doubt due to a possible illusion or deception;
it is only claiming that reason, which is not an illusion, can be used to justify knowledge of analytic
propositions, which are proven true through analyzing them, again without the interference of a
possible illusion created through experience.
Part II: I will now give a possible objection to the argument from Part I.
I object to the first premise given in Part I, because justification or knowledge about the way
the world really is cannot come from reason alone. Although rationalism can provide an argument
that can show we know that analytic propositions are true, these propositions are trivial and only
contain information about the way in which we utilize terms and definitions in our world, as
described in book 1. For example, the statement “all men are mortal” is considered an analytic
proposition because one can analyze the definitions of the terms used. However, this does not
2. We know that analytic propositions are true. Therefore, justification for knowledge of analytic propositions comes from reason alone.
I believe premise 1 is true because we can know something through reason, because reason is
not an illusion, but we cannot know that something simply by experiencing it through our senses,
because our senses can deceive us. For example, what one perceives to be an oasis in the middle
of a dessert might turn out to be a mirage. …show more content…
One of the overall
advantages of this theory is that it escapes the threat of doubt due to a possible illusion or deception;
it is only claiming that reason, which is not an illusion, can be used to justify knowledge of analytic
propositions, which are proven true through analyzing them, again without the interference of a
possible illusion created through experience.
Part II: I will now give a possible objection to the argument from Part I.
I object to the first premise given in Part I, because justification or knowledge about the way
the world really is cannot come from reason alone. Although rationalism can provide an argument
that can show we know that analytic propositions are true, these propositions are trivial and only
contain information about the way in which we utilize terms and definitions in our world, as
described in book 1. For example, the statement “all men are mortal” is considered an analytic
proposition because one can analyze the definitions of the terms used. However, this does not