He believed that each student has a way of thinking critically and is not just a passive recipient of knowledge or education

from a teacher. He
studied the relationship between teaching and learning and endorsed that the teacher should help students in developing freedom of thought
that would enable them to use their knowledge to take constructive action.
Read more at http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/paulo-freire-4055.php#EIKKr5LPywRXbqZt.99

Implications for instructional design

Methods consistent with these [objectivist] assumptions tend to emphasize learning contexts that support the transition from initial,
propositional knowledge to signalling when and how it can be used. Instructional analysis procedures can be used to analyze the information
requirements and conditional structures of performance. Consistent with Gagn's (1996) views on the learning of intellectual skills, complex
skills such as problem-solving are seen as hierarchically dependent on the learning of lower-order skills and concepts, that is, lower-order
skills are prerequisite to complex skill development. Thus, declarative or verbal information required for complex conceptual knowledge is
identified, isolated, and taught in an appropriate sequence. This is a widely accepted approach among objectivists and is consonant with
traditional cognitive psychological foundations emphasizing learning as an incremental, mathemagenically-facilitated process. (Hannafin
97).
Also according to Philips (1998) a strength of objectivism is its ability to address novice learning situations. Therefore, to implement
learning scenarios that aim the acquisition of complex knowledge structures or learning strategies it is suggested to select strategies at the
constructivist end of the continuum. (Marra and Jonassen, 1993)

The Philosophy of Objectivism

The only thing that the philosophies of objectivism and constructivism have in common is the
conviction that there is a reality apart from the individual. Yet, they offer incompatible answers
to the question of epistemology on the human capacity for understanding.
While from a constructivist point of view, a human being constructs his own reality, objectivists
say that human experiences play only a minor role in structuring the world, as meaning is
something that exists in the world quite aside from experience (Duffe/Jonassen 2).
Consequently, knowledge is considered as existing externally and independent from the learner.
That means, it corresponds to the accurate representation of objectivistic reality (Bernstein 9).
Thus, we can conclude that the aim of learning is to acquire knowledge of objects, their
characteristics and interactions.
Variations of objectivism are, for example, the symbol-theoretical copy theory, naive realism
and the Philosophy of Common Sense. They are all based on the existence of an objective reality
that is to be perceived - and not, as constructivists claim, created.
The Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand holds the same conviction. She seems
to be the only one to call herself an objectivist. She was the founder of the Philosophy of
Objectivism, which is based on fundamental statements on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics,
and politics. The following of her statements are useful for our purposes:
"[...]Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings,
desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are - and that the task of man's concsiousness is to
perceive reality, not to create or invent it. [...]"
"Epistemology: 'Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge. [...]'" (Rand)

Why is Objectivism used in eLearning, instead of Constructivist approaches?

If you examine the tables of contents of most eLearning systems/lessons/courses, etc., you find that the underlying educational philosophy is
one of Objectivism. This theory holds that the student's mind is an empty slate that the lecturer/teacher/instructor fills up. The systems
approach to this kind of eEducation has the creator of that system examine the subject to be taught, divide it up into small bits, sequence the
bits in some logical order, and then put all students through the same process of learning the material in that order.
For example, eTextbooks (most of eLearning materials are some kind of electronic textbooks and called Tutorials) for learning elementary
programming suggest that IF statements MUST come before LOOPING statements and so they contain chapters devoted to everything about
selection, before anything is seen of repetition. These eLearning systems are reference works, not learning materials.
The objectivist theory ignores the fact that such a methodology is deadly boring to most students. First, it forces them to "learn" things they
already know. And second, it ignores any individual difference in learning style or preference.
Constructivist educational philosophy, on the other hand, views the student as knowledgeable and task driven. New things are learned by
integrating them into what is already known and it is done primarily so that meaningful (to the person) tasks may be carried out.
Your thoughts on why the objectivist approach in eTeaching/eLearnig is used instead constructivist.

Objectivism is fully secular and absolutist; it is neither liberal nor conservative nor anywhere in between. It
recognizes and upholds the secular (this-worldly) source and nature of moral principles and the secular moral
foundations of a fully free, fully civilized society.
Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interestvirtues such as independent thinking,
productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility. Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement,
industrial progress, objective (as opposed to progressive or faith-based) education, romantic artand, above all,
reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason. Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissezfaire capitalismthe social system of individual rights and strictly limited governmentalong with the whole moral
and philosophical structure on which it depends.
Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth. The reason why it is a philosophy for living on Earth
is that its every principle is derived from the observable facts of reality and the demonstrable requirements of human
life and happiness.
As a philosophical system, Objectivism includes a view of the nature of reality, of mans means of knowledge, of mans
nature and means of survival, of a proper morality, of a proper social system, and of the nature and value of art. Rand
presented her philosophy in her many fiction and nonfiction books, such as The Fountainhead, Atlas
Shrugged, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and The Romantic
Manifesto.
There is a great deal to Objectivism, much more than can be addressed in a book, let alone an essay. Moreover,
neither I nor anyone elseother than Randcan speak for Objectivism; the philosophy is precisely the body of
philosophical principles set forth in her works. What follows, therefore, is an essentialized condensation of
Objectivism as I see it. Any errors in the presentation are mine.

The Nature of Reality

Objectivism holds that reality is an absolutethat facts are facts, regardless of anyones hopes, fears, or desires. There
is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore
of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or
divine decree. An individuals ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything
about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the sun revolves
around the earth (as some people do); that does not make it so.
Likewise, the accepted ideas or norms of a society or culture have no effect on the nature of reality; they either
comport with the facts of reality, or they do not. Some cultures maintain that the earth is flat, that slavery is good, and
that women are mentally inferior to men. Such beliefs do not alter the nature of what is; they contradict it; they are
false.
As to the alleged existence of a supernatural being who creates and controls reality, no evidence or rational
argument supports such a thing. Things in nature can be evidence only for the existence of things in nature (as, for
instance, the fossil record is evidence for evolution); they cannot be evidence for the existence of things outside of
nature or above nature or beyond nature. Nature is all there is; it is the sum of what exists; something outside of
nature would be outside of existencethat is: nonexistent. Nature is not evidence for the existence of supernature. There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being; there are only books, traditions, and people
that say he exists. Evidence-free assertions, appeals to tradition, and appeals to authority are not rational arguments;
they are textbook logical fallacies.
Neither individual beliefs nor widespread agreement nor a supernatural beings will has any effect on the nature of
the world. Reality is not created or controlled by consciousness. Reality just is. Existence just existsand everything
in it is something specific; everything is what it is and can act only in accordance with its identity. A rose is a rose; it
can bloom; it cannot speak. A dictatorship is a dictatorship; it destroys life; it cannot promote life. Faith is faith (i.e.,
the acceptance of ideas in the absence of evidence); it leads to baseless beliefs; it cannot provide knowledge.
The practical significance of this point is that if people want to achieve their goalssuch as gaining knowledge,
amassing wealth, achieving happiness, establishing and maintaining libertythey must recognize and embrace the
nature of reality. Reality does not bend to our desires; we must conform to its laws. If we want knowledge, we must
observe reality and think; if we want wealth, we must produce it; if we want to enjoy life, we must think, plan, and act
accordingly; if we want liberty, we must identify and enact its cause. We cannot achieve such goals by wishing, voting,
or praying.
Objectivism holds that reasonthe faculty that operates by way of observation and logicis mans means of
knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the
basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he
discovers in his thinking. This is how scientists discover facts in their various fields, from the principles of agriculture
to the existence of atoms to the structure of DNA; it is how inventors and engineers design life-enhancing machines
and devices, from automobiles to heart pumps to MP3 players; it is how businessmen establish ways to produce and
deliver goods and services, from refrigerators to movies to wireless Internet access; it is how doctors diagnose and
cure (or treat) diseases, from polio to sickle cell anemia to breast cancer; it is how children learn language, math, and
manners; it is how philosophers discover the nature of the universe, the nature of man, and the proper principles of
morality, politics, and esthetics. Reason is the means by which everyone learns about the world, himself, and his
needs. Human knowledgeall human knowledgeis a product of perceptual observation and logical inference
therefrom.

Thus, Objectivism rejects all forms of mysticismthe idea that knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory,
nonrational means (such as faith, intuition, ESP, or any other form of just knowing). Objectivism equally
rejects skepticismthe idea that knowledge is impossible, that it cannot be acquired by any means. Man clearly can
acquire knowledge, has done so, and continues to do so; this is evident in the fact that he has accomplished all that he
has.
In short, man has a means of knowledge; it is reasonand reason alone. If people want to know what is true or good
or right, they must observe reality and use logic.

Objectivism holds that man has free willthe ability to think or not to think, to use reason or not to use it, to go by
facts or to go by feelings. A person does not have to use reason; the choice is his to make. Whatever an individuals
choice, however, the fact remains that man is the rational animal; reason is his only means of knowledge and
therefore his basic means of survival. A person who refuses to use reason cannot live and flourish.
Man survives by observing reality, identifying the nature of things, discovering causal relationships, and making the
logical connections necessary to produce the things he needs in order to live. Insofar as a person chooses to use
reason, he is able to identify and pursue the things he needs for survival and happinessthings such as knowledge,
food, shelter, medical care, art, recreation, romance, and freedom. Insofar as a person does not choose to use reason,
he is unable to identify or pursue these requirements; he either dies or survives parasitically on the minds of those
who do choose to use reason. In any case, reason is mans basic means of survival, and free willthe choice to use
reason or notis the essence of his nature.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the notion that mans nature is inherently corrupt (i.e., the idea of original sin, or the
Hobbesian view of man as a brute), making his character necessarily depraved or barbaric. Objectivism also rejects
the idea that man has no nature at all (i.e., the twisted, modern interpretation of man as a blank slate), making his
character the consequence of social forces, such as upbringing or economic conditions. A persons character is neither
inherently bad nor the product of social forces; rather, it is a consequence of his choices. If an individual chooses to
face facts, to think rationally, to be productive, and so onand thereby develops a good characterthat is his
achievement. If an individual chooses not to face facts, not to think, not to produce, and so onand thus develops a
bad characterthat is his fault.
Man has free will, and this fact is what gives rise to his need of morality: a code of values to guide his choices and
actions.

A Proper Morality
Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to provide people with principled guidance for living and achieving
happiness on earth. The proper standard of moral value is mans lifemeaning: the factual requirements of his life as
set by his nature. And because human beings are individuals, each with his own body, his own mind, his own life, this
standard pertains to human beings as individuals(not as cogs in a utilitarian collective). According to this principle,
the good is that which supports or promotes an individuals life; the evil is that which retards or destroys it. Being
moral consists in taking the actions necessary to sustain and further ones lifeactions such as thinking rationally and
planning for the future, being honest and having integrity, producing goods or services and trading them with others,
judging people rationally (according to the relevant facts) and treating them accordingly, and so on. In a word,
Objectivism holds that being moral consists in being rationally selfish or egoistic.

Rational egoism, the centerpiece of Objectivism, holds that each individual should act in his own best interest and is
the proper beneficiary of his own moral action. This principle is the recognition of the fact that in order to live,
people must take self-interested action and reap the benefits thereof. Human life requires egoism. (I use rational
egoism and egoism interchangeably for reasons that will become clear.)
Thus, Objectivism rejects the morality of altruismthe idea that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving
others (whether the poor, the common good, mother nature, or God). Objectivism also rejects the idea
that predationthe sacrificing of others for ones own alleged benefitcan promote ones life and happiness. And
Objectivism rejects hedonismthe idea that being moral consists in acting in whatever manner gives one pleasure (or
doing whatever one feels like doing).
Empiricism is a philosophical perspective based on experience and observation. Learn more about the definition of empiricism and
test your knowledge with a quiz.

Definition of Empiricism
Why do you believe what you believe to be true? Is your knowledge based on your experience, or is your knowledge based on what
others have told you? There are a number of philosophical beliefs about life and experience. Some philosophies suggest that
knowledge must be proven, while other philosophies suggest that it is based on reasoning.
Empiricism is an important part of the scientific method because theories and hypotheses must be observed and tested to be
considered accurate. Empiricists tend to be skeptical that anything can be known for certain, and therefore they tend not to believe
in dogmas or absolute truths. This is in contrast to rationalists, who tend to believe that the universe has absolute laws that can be
determined and that the human mind is naturally predisposed to understanding certain truths.
Empiricism is a philosophical belief that states your knowledge of the world is based on your experiences, particularly your sensory
experiences. According to empiricists, our learning is based on our observations and perception; knowledge is not possible without
experience.

Types of Empiricism
There are three types of empiricism: classical empiricism, radical empiricism, and moderate empiricism.
Classical empiricism is based on the belief that there is no such thing as innate or in-born knowledge. John Locke is one of the most
well-known empiricists; he claimed the mind is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, at birth. Locke asserts that our experience of the world
provides us with knowledge.
Radical empiricism stems from the belief that our knowledge of the world is based solely on our senses; if something is not
experienced through our senses, it does not exist according to radical empiricists. Radical empiricists reject religious beliefs because
such beliefs cannot be investigated through the evidence of the senses.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Create your account

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views ofepistemology,
the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience andevidence,
especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that
traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences. [3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of
thescientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a
priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic,
subject to continued revision and falsification."[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge.
The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research.
Contents
[hide]

Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or
applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or
knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricismfrom the
ancient Greek word empeiria, experience.
Concepts are said to be a posteriori (Latin: from the latter) if they can be applied only on the basis of experience,
and they are called a priori (from the former) if they can be applied independently of experience. Beliefs or
propositions are ... (100 of 6,145 words)

Empiricism is the philosophical stance according to which the senses are the ultimate source of human knowledge. It
rivals rationalism according to which reason is the ultimate source of knowledge. In a form or another, empiricism is a chapter of
most philosophical tradition. In Western philosophy, empiricism boasts a long and distinguished list of followers in all ages; probably
the most fertile moment for this trend happened during the early modernity, with the so-called British empiricists, whose rank
includes authors of the caliber of John Locke and David Hume.
The Centrality of Experience
Empiricists claim that all ideas that a mind can entertain have been formed through some experiences or to use a slightly more
technical term through some impressions; here is how David Hume expressed this creed: "it must be some one impression that
gives rise to every real idea" (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Section IV, Ch. vi). Indeed Hume continues in Book II "all our
ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones". Under this characterization, empiricism is the
claim that all human ideas are less detailed copies of some experience or other.

Rationalism is a philosophical movement which gathered momentum during the Age of

Reason of the 17th Century. It is usually associated with the introduction
of mathematical methods into philosophy during this period by the major rationalist
figures,Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza. The preponderance of French Rationalists in
the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment, includingVoltaire, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and Charles de Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755), is often
known as French Rationalism.
Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive reason (as opposed to
sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the source of knowledge or
justification. Thus, it holds that some propositions are knowable by us by intuitionalone,

while others are knowable by being deduced through valid arguments from intuited
propositions. It relies on the idea that reality has a rational structure in that all
aspects of it can be grasped through mathematical and logical principles, and not
simply through sensory experience.
Rationalists believe that, rather than being a "tabula rasa" to be imprinted with sense
data, the mind is structured by, and responds to, mathematical methods of
reasoning. Some of our knowledge or the concepts we employ are part of our innate
rational nature: experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge
to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself,
which has in some way been with us all along. See the section on the doctrine of
Rationalism for more details.
Rationalism is usually contrasted with Empiricism (the view that the origin of all
knowledge is sense experience and sensory perception), and it is often referred to
as Continental Rationalism because it was predominant in the continental schools
ofEurope, whereas British Empiricism dominated in Britain. However,
the distinction between the two is perhaps not as clear-cutas is sometimes suggested,
and would probably not have even been recognized by the philosophers involved.
Although Rationalists asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific
knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, they also observed that
this was not possible in practice for human beings, except in specific areas such
asmathematics.
It has some similarities in ideology and intent to the earlier Humanist movement in that
it aims to provide a framework for philosophical discourse outside of religious or
supernatural beliefs. But in other respects there is little to compare. While
theroots of Rationalism may go back to the Eleatics and Pythagoreans of ancient
Greece, or at least to Platonists and Neo-Platonists, the definitive formulation of the
theory had to wait until the 17th Century philosophers of the Age of Reason.
Ren Descartes is one of the earliest and best known proponents of Rationalism, which
is often known as Cartesianism (and followers of Descartes' formulation of Rationalism
as Cartesians). He believed that knowledge of eternal truths (e.g. mathematics and
the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences) could be attained
by reason alone, without the need for any sensory experience. Other knowledge (e.g.
the knowledge of physics), required experience of the world, aided by the scientific
method - a moderate rationalist position. For instance, his famous dictum "Cogito ergo
sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is a conclusion reached a priori and not through an
inference from experience. Descartes held that some ideas (innate ideas) come
from God; others ideas are derived from sensory experience; and still others

are fictitious (or created by the imagination). Of these, the only ideas which are
certainly valid, according to Descartes, are those which are innate.
Baruch Spinoza expanded upon Descartes' basic principles of Rationalism. His
philosophy centred on several principles, most of which relied on his notion that God is
the only absolute substance (similar to Descartes' conception of God), and that
substance is composed of two attributes, thought and extension. He believed that all
aspects of the natural world (including Man) were modes of the eternal substance of
God, and can therefore only be known through pure thought or reason.
Gottfried Leibniz attempted to rectify what he saw as some of the problems that were
not settled by Descartes by combiningDescartes' work with Aristotle's notion
of form and his own conception of the universe as composed of monads. He believed
that ideas exist in the intellect innately, but only in a virtual sense, and it is only when
the mind reflects on itself that those ideas are actualized.
Nicolas Malebranche is another well-known Rationalist, who attempted to square the
Rationalism of Ren Descartes with his strong Christian convictions and his implicit
acceptance of the teachings of St. Augustine. He posited that although humans attain
knowledge through ideas rather than sensory perceptions, those ideas exist only in
God, so that when we access them intellectually, we apprehend objective truth. His
views were hotly contested by another Cartesian Rationalist and JensenistAntoine
Arnauld (1612 - 1694), although mainly on theological grounds.
In the 18th Century, the great French rationalists of
the Enlightenment (often known as French Rationalism)
include Voltaire,Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles de Secondat (Baron
de Montesquieu) (1689 - 1755). These philosophers produced some of the
most powerful and influential political and philosophical writing in Western
history, and had a defining influence on the subsequent history of Western
democracy and Liberalism.
Immanuel Kant started as a traditional Rationalist, having
studied Leibniz and Christian Wolf (1679 - 1754) but, after also studying
the empiricist David Hume's works, he developed a distinctive and
very influential Rationalism of his own, which attempted to synthesize the
traditional rationalist and empiricist traditions.
During the middle of the 20th Century there was a strong tradition of
organized Rationalism (represented in Britain by theRationalist Press
Association, for example), which was particularly influenced by free

thinkers and intellectuals. However, Rationalism in this sense has little in

common with traditional Continental Rationalism, and is marked more by a
reliance onempirical science. It accepted the supremacy of reason but
insisted that the results be verifiable by experience and independent of
all arbitrary assumptions or authority.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense
experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or
knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some
form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First,
they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place.
(Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or
knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a
source of concepts or knowledge.
In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" [1] or "any view appealing to reason
as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the
truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this,
rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain
rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall
into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to
ascertain truth in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense
experience".[4] Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals.
Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason
has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". [5] Given
a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical tophilosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear
interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent
decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as
foundational, but asmaieutic. Rationalism should not be confused with rationality, nor with rationalization.
In politics, Rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational
choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion[6] the latter aspect's antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic
rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.[7][8]
In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham[9] noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism: In the past,
particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term 'rationalist' was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious
outlook, and for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (thus in 1670 Sanderson spoke disparagingly of 'a mere rationalist, that
is to say in plain English an atheist of the late edition...'). The use of the label 'rationalist' to characterize a world outlook which has no place
for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like 'humanist' or 'materialist' seem largely to have taken its place. But the old
usage still survives.
Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both
rationalist and empiricist.[2] Taken to extremes, the empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us a posteriori, that is to say, through
experience; either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. The empiricist essentially believes
that knowledge is based on or derived directly from experience. The rationalist believes we come to knowledge a priori through the use of
logic and is thus independent of sensory experience. In other words, as Galen Strawson once wrote, "you can see that it is true just lying
on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have
to do any science."[10] Between both philosophies, the issue at hand is the fundamental source of human knowledge and the proper

techniques for verifying what we think we know. Whereas both philosophies are under the umbrella of epistemology, their argument lies in
the understanding of the warrant, which is under the wider epistemic umbrella of the theory of justification.

Theory of justification[edit]
Main article: Theory of justification
The theory of justification is the part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists
are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these
four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is "warrant". Loosely speaking, justification is
the reason that someone (probably) holds a belief.
If "A" makes a claim, and "B" then casts doubt on it, "A"'s next move would normally be to provide justification. The precise method one uses
to provide justification is where the lines are drawn between rationalism and empiricism (among other philosophical views). Much of the
debate in these fields are focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief,
and justification.

Theses of rationalism[edit]
At its core, rationalism consists of three basic claims. For one to consider themselves a rationalist, they must adopt at least one of these
three claims: The Intuition/Deduction Thesis, The Innate Knowledge Thesis, or The Innate Concept Thesis. In addition, rationalists can
choose to adopt the claims of Indispensability of Reason and or the Superiority of Reason although one can be a rationalist without
adopting either thesis.

Relativism, 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. More precisely, relativism covers views which maintain thatat a high level of abstractionat
least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but
only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the
truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.
Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no frameworkindependent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.
Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time.
Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant.
Detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. Debates about relativism permeate the
whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology,
theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea.
Discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the
division between the so-called analytic and continental camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate going
back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core,
relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. This entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which
relativism has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.
he label relativism has been attached to a wide range of ideas and positions which may explain the
lack of consensus on how the term should be defined. The profusion of the use of the term relativism
in contemporary philosophy means that there is no ready consensus on any one definition. Here are
three prominent, but not necessarily incompatible, approaches:
Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but they only have relative, subjective
value according to differences in perception and consideration. [1] As moral relativism, the term is often used in the context of moral principles,
where principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree
of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always
relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cultural relativism).[3]

iferent Manifestations of Relativism

Relativism is everywhere. Although the list is certainly long, we'll select
some of the main manifestations of relativism within our society.
Objective relativism is the view that the beliefs of a person or group
of persons are ''true'' for them, but not necessarily for others.
Ultimately, says this brand of relativism, no truth is universally,
objectively true or false. One person's ''truth,'' which really amounts
to opinion, can conflict with another's ''truth'' and still be valid.
Objective relativism (also known as ''epistimological relativism'')
challenges the very existence of how we know what we know, our
underlying assumptions, and the validity of our knowledge.)
Religious relativism maintains that one religion can be true for one
person or culture but not for another. No religion, therefore, is
universally or exclusively true. Religious beliefs are simply an
accident of birth: If a person grows up in America, chances are good
that he might become a Christian; if in India, that he will be a Hindu;
if in Saudi Arabia, that he will be a Muslim. If what one believes is
the product of historical happenstance, the argument goes, no
single religious belief can be universally or objectively true.
Moral relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no
objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are true - or
''genuine'' - for some, but not for others. Since there are differing
opinions of morality in the world, there is no reason to think that one
is any more true and objectively binding than another. The
implication is that statements of value (for example, ''adultery is
morally wrong'') can be true for some but false for others.
Something is wrong - sleeping with the boss, stealing paper clips, or
leaving work early - only if you think or feel it is wrong.

Cultural relativism says that what is immoral in our culture is not

necessarily immoral in another country. No one, therefore, can
judge another's moral values. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse
illustrates this view well. Ruse refers to the once widespread Indian
practice of suttee, the burning of a widow on her husband's funeral
pyre, which was later outlawed by the British: ''Obviously, such a
practice is totally alien to Western customs and morality. In fact, we
think that widow sacrifice is totally immoral.'' That may be what

Westeners think, yet Ruse says it is wrong to judge suttee as a bad

thing. Obviously, the same principle means we shouldn't condemn
slavery in America, genocide in Africa, or female infanticide in
China.