modern-rationalism-empiricism skill

---
name: modern-rationalism-empiricism
description: "Master Early Modern philosophy from Descartes through Kant. Use for: rationalism, empiricism, the epistemological turn, mind-body problem, substance metaphysics. Triggers: 'Cartesian', 'cogito', 'Descartes', 'Spinoza', 'Leibniz', 'Locke', 'Berkeley', 'Hume', 'tabula rasa', 'innate ideas', 'impressions ideas', 'monads', 'substance', 'causation', 'personal identity', 'transcendental', 'synthetic a priori', 'Kant', 'categories', 'thing-in-itself', 'noumenon', 'phenomenon'."
---

# Modern Rationalism & Empiricism Skill

Master the early modern period (c. 1600-1800)—the age of the "epistemological turn" when philosophy focused on questions of knowledge, mind, and method, culminating in Kant's critical synthesis.

## Overview

### The Epistemological Turn

**Medieval Philosophy**: What is real? (Metaphysics first)
**Modern Philosophy**: What can we know? (Epistemology first)

### Historical Context

```
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (Background)
├── Copernicus (1473-1543): Heliocentrism
├── Galileo (1564-1642): Mathematical physics
├── Newton (1643-1727): Mechanics, calculus
└── New confidence in human reason

CONTINENTAL RATIONALISM
├── Descartes (1596-1650): Method, dualism
├── Spinoza (1632-1677): Monism, Ethics
└── Leibniz (1646-1716): Monads, pre-established harmony

BRITISH EMPIRICISM
├── Locke (1632-1704): Tabula rasa, ideas
├── Berkeley (1685-1753): Idealism
└── Hume (1711-1776): Skepticism, naturalism

SYNTHESIS
└── Kant (1724-1804): Transcendental idealism
```

---

## Continental Rationalism

### Core Commitments

| Thesis | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| **Innate Ideas** | Some ideas are in the mind prior to experience |
| **Reason as Source** | Reason, not sense, provides genuine knowledge |
| **Mathematical Model** | Philosophy should emulate mathematical certainty |
| **Substance Metaphysics** | Reality consists of substances with attributes |

### Descartes (1596-1650)

**The Method of Doubt**:
```
CARTESIAN DOUBT
═══════════════

LEVEL 1: SENSES
├── Senses sometimes deceive (optical illusions)
├── Therefore, cannot trust senses completely
└── But this doesn't show everything from senses is false

LEVEL 2: DREAMING
├── I cannot distinguish dreaming from waking with certainty
├── Any sensory experience could be a dream
└── But even in dreams, mathematical truths hold

LEVEL 3: EVIL DEMON (Malin Génie)
├── Imagine a supremely powerful deceiver
├── Could make me wrong about everything
├── Even 2+2=4 could be implanted deception
└── Global, hyperbolic doubt

SURVIVING THE DOUBT:
"Cogito, ergo sum" — I think, therefore I am
├── Even if deceived, I must exist to be deceived
├── First certain truth
└── Foundation for rebuilding knowledge
```

**Meditations Structure**:
| Meditation | Content |
|------------|---------|
| I | Method of doubt |
| II | Cogito; nature of mind |
| III | Proofs of God's existence |
| IV | Truth and error |
| V | Essence of material things; ontological argument |
| VI | Real distinction of mind and body; external world |

**Mind-Body Dualism**:
```
CARTESIAN DUALISM
═════════════════

MIND (Res Cogitans)         BODY (Res Extensa)
─────────────────           ─────────────────
Thinking substance          Extended substance
Unextended                  No thought
Indivisible                 Divisible
Free                        Mechanical
Known directly              Known through senses

INTERACTION PROBLEM:
How can unextended mind affect extended body?
Descartes: Pineal gland (unsatisfying)
```

**Clear and Distinct Ideas**:
- Criterion of truth: Whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true
- God guarantees this criterion (no deceiver)
- Circle? (Need God to validate criterion, criterion to prove God)

### Spinoza (1632-1677)

**Radical Monism**: There is only ONE substance—God/Nature (*Deus sive Natura*)

```
SPINOZISTIC METAPHYSICS
═══════════════════════

SUBSTANCE
├── That which is in itself and conceived through itself
├── There can be only ONE substance (infinite, necessary)
├── = God = Nature
└── Has infinite attributes

ATTRIBUTES
├── What intellect perceives as constituting substance
├── We know two: Thought and Extension
├── Mind and body are same thing under different attributes
└── Parallelism, not interaction

MODES
├── Modifications of substance
├── Individual minds, bodies are modes
├── Finite, dependent, determined
└── All follow necessarily from God's nature

ETHICS
├── Freedom = understanding necessity
├── Highest good: intellectual love of God
├── Emotions: adequate vs. inadequate ideas
└── "Sub specie aeternitatis"
```

**Determinism**: Everything follows necessarily from God's nature
- No free will in libertarian sense
- Freedom is acting from one's own nature
- Knowledge liberates from bondage to passions

### Leibniz (1646-1716)

**Monads**: Ultimate simple substances

```
LEIBNIZIAN MONADOLOGY
═════════════════════

MONADS
├── Simple substances, no parts
├── No windows (cannot be affected from outside)
├── Each contains whole universe from its perspective
├── Differ in clarity of perception
└── Hierarchy: bare → souls → spirits

PERCEPTION AND APPETITION
├── Each monad perceives entire universe
├── Most perceptions are "petites perceptions" (unconscious)
├── Appetition: internal drive from perception to perception
└── Mirrors the universe

PRE-ESTABLISHED HARMONY
├── Monads don't interact
├── God synchronized them at creation
├── Like two clocks keeping perfect time
└── Solves mind-body problem without interaction

PRINCIPLES
├── Identity of Indiscernibles: No two things exactly alike
├── Sufficient Reason: Nothing without a reason
├── Best of All Possible Worlds: God chose the best
└── Continuity: Nature makes no leaps
```

**Theodicy**: This is the best of all possible worlds
- God could create any logically possible world
- God chose the best (maximum perfection with minimum means)
- Evil exists because a world with evil can be better overall
- (Voltaire's *Candide* satirizes this)

---

## British Empiricism

### Core Commitments

| Thesis | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| **No Innate Ideas** | Mind begins as blank slate (tabula rasa) |
| **Experience as Source** | All knowledge derives from experience |
| **Limits of Knowledge** | We cannot know beyond experience |
| **Analysis of Ideas** | Break complex ideas into simple components |

### Locke (1632-1704)

**Theory of Ideas**:
```
LOCKEAN EPISTEMOLOGY
════════════════════

SOURCE OF IDEAS:

SENSATION                    REFLECTION
├── External world           ├── Operations of mind
├── Through senses           ├── Perception, memory, reasoning
└── Primary source           └── Secondary source

TYPES OF IDEAS:

SIMPLE IDEAS
├── Cannot be further analyzed
├── Passive reception from experience
├── Examples: yellow, cold, hard, sweet
└── Building blocks

COMPLEX IDEAS
├── Mind combines simple ideas
├── Three types:
│   ├── Modes (modifications)
│   ├── Substances (collections)
│   └── Relations (comparisons)
└── Examples: beauty, gratitude, army, causation
```

**Primary and Secondary Qualities**:
| Primary | Secondary |
|---------|-----------|
| In objects themselves | In perceiver |
| Extension, motion, number | Color, taste, sound |
| Resemble ideas | Don't resemble |
| Measurable | Subjective |

**Personal Identity**: Not same substance, but same consciousness
- Memory connects present to past self
- Identity follows consciousness, not substance
- Forensic concept (responsibility)

### Berkeley (1685-1753)

**Immaterialism**: *Esse est percipi* (To be is to be perceived)

```
BERKELEYAN IDEALISM
═══════════════════

THE ARGUMENT:

1. We perceive only ideas (Locke agrees)

2. Ideas can only exist in a mind (perception requires perceiver)

3. Material substance is supposed to cause ideas

4. But we have no idea of material substance!
   └── Abstract idea of "matter" is incoherent

5. Therefore, "material substance" is meaningless

6. Objects = collections of ideas

7. What makes objects persist when unperceived?
   └── God perceives all things always

AGAINST LOCKE:
├── Primary/secondary distinction fails
├── All qualities are ideas, all ideas are mind-dependent
├── "Material substance" is an empty abstraction
└── Abstract ideas are impossible
```

**God's Role**:
- God's mind sustains all ideas
- Laws of nature = God's regular perceptions
- Other minds: known by analogy, not perception

### Hume (1711-1776)

**Impressions and Ideas**:
```
HUMEAN EPISTEMOLOGY
═══════════════════

IMPRESSIONS                  IDEAS
├── Lively, vivid            ├── Faint copies
├── Direct experience        ├── Derived from impressions
└── Original                 └── Copies

RELATIONS OF IDEAS           MATTERS OF FACT
├── Certain, necessary       ├── Contingent
├── Deny → contradiction     ├── Deny → no contradiction
├── Mathematics, logic       ├── Empirical claims
└── A priori                 └── A posteriori

HUME'S FORK:
Any claim either concerns:
1. Relations of ideas (analytic, certain)
2. Matters of fact (synthetic, probable)
If neither, "commit it to the flames"
```

**The Problem of Induction**:
```
HUME'S PROBLEM
══════════════

We reason: The sun has risen every day, therefore it will rise tomorrow.

But this assumes: Nature is uniform (future will resemble past)

How do we know this?
├── Not by reason alone (no contradiction in nature changing)
├── Not by experience (circular—uses induction to prove induction)
└── Not at all! Habit and custom, not reason.

SKEPTICAL SOLUTION:
├── Cannot justify induction rationally
├── We form expectations through habit
├── This is natural, unavoidable
└── Live by natural belief, not rational proof
```

**Causation**:
```
HUME ON CAUSATION
═════════════════

TRADITIONAL VIEW: Necessary connection between cause and effect

HUME'S ANALYSIS:
1. Constant conjunction (A always followed by B)
2. Contiguity in space and time
3. Temporal priority (A before B)

WHERE IS NECESSARY CONNECTION?
├── Not in objects (we see only succession)
├── Not in experience (no impression of necessity)
└── In the mind! (Habit creates expectation)

CONCLUSION:
├── Causation = regular succession + mental expectation
├── No real power in objects
└── "Necessary connection" is projection
```

**Personal Identity**:
- No impression of the self
- Self = bundle of perceptions
- "A kind of theatre where several perceptions make their appearance"
- Puzzlement: What ties the bundle together?

---

## Kant's Critical Synthesis

### The Critical Project

**Problem**: How to preserve science while answering Hume's skepticism?

**Solution**: Transcendental idealism

```
KANT'S COPERNICAN REVOLUTION
════════════════════════════

TRADITIONAL VIEW:
Mind conforms to objects
(We passively receive information about world as it is)

KANT'S REVOLUTION:
Objects conform to mind
(Mind actively structures experience)

CONSEQUENCE:
├── We can know phenomena (appearances)
├── Cannot know noumena (things-in-themselves)
├── Synthetic a priori knowledge is possible
└── Through forms supplied by the mind
```

### Types of Judgment

```
KANT'S DISTINCTIONS
═══════════════════

                    ANALYTIC          SYNTHETIC
                    (Predicate in     (Predicate adds to
                     subject)          subject)

A PRIORI            "All bachelors    "7 + 5 = 12"
(Independent of     are unmarried"    "Every event has
 experience)        ✓ Everyone        a cause"
                    accepts           THE KEY QUESTION!

A POSTERIORI        (Impossible—      "The cat is on
(Dependent on       analytic truths    the mat"
 experience)        don't need        ✓ Everyone
                    experience)       accepts
```

**The Central Question**: How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

### Transcendental Aesthetic (Space and Time)

```
SPACE AND TIME
══════════════

NOT:
├── Properties of things-in-themselves
├── Abstract concepts derived from experience
└── Relations between things

BUT:
├── Forms of sensible intuition
├── Structures the mind imposes on experience
├── A priori conditions for perception

SPACE
├── Form of outer sense
├── Makes geometry possible
└── Necessary, a priori

TIME
├── Form of inner sense
├── All representations in time
├── Makes arithmetic possible
└── Necessary, a priori
```

### Transcendental Analytic (Categories)

**The Categories**: Pure concepts of understanding

```
THE TWELVE CATEGORIES
═════════════════════

QUANTITY              QUALITY
├── Unity             ├── Reality
├── Plurality         ├── Negation
└── Totality          └── Limitation

RELATION              MODALITY
├── Substance         ├── Possibility
├── Causality         ├── Actuality
└── Reciprocity       └── Necessity

APPLICATION:
├── Categories structure all experience
├── Cannot be derived from experience
├── But only apply within experience
└── No transcendent use (beyond experience)
```

**Transcendental Deduction**:
- How can categories (a priori) apply to experience (a posteriori)?
- Answer: The unity of consciousness requires categorical synthesis
- "I think" must be able to accompany all my representations
- Categories are conditions for unified experience

### Transcendental Dialectic (Limits of Reason)

**Transcendental Illusion**: Reason tries to extend beyond experience

```
THE THREE IDEAS OF REASON
═════════════════════════

SOUL (Psychology)
├── Rational psychology claims to prove immortality
├── Paralogisms: invalid arguments about the self
└── "I think" ≠ substantial soul

WORLD (Cosmology)
├── Antinomies: contradictory conclusions
├── Thesis vs. Antithesis both provable
├── Example: World has beginning / No beginning
└── Shows: Questions transcend possible experience

GOD (Theology)
├── Traditional proofs fail
├── Ontological: Existence not a predicate
├── Cosmological: Misuse of causality
├── Teleological: At best shows designer, not God
└── But: God as regulative idea, postulate of practical reason
```

---

## Key Vocabulary

| Term | Philosopher | Meaning |
|------|-------------|---------|
| Cogito | Descartes | "I think" — first certainty |
| Res cogitans | Descartes | Thinking substance (mind) |
| Res extensa | Descartes | Extended substance (body) |
| Clear and distinct | Descartes | Criterion of truth |
| Substance | Spinoza | That which is in itself |
| Attribute | Spinoza | What constitutes substance |
| Mode | Spinoza | Modification of substance |
| Monad | Leibniz | Simple substance |
| Pre-established harmony | Leibniz | God's synchronization |
| Tabula rasa | Locke | Blank slate |
| Primary qualities | Locke | In objects (extension) |
| Secondary qualities | Locke | In perceiver (color) |
| Esse est percipi | Berkeley | To be is to be perceived |
| Impressions | Hume | Vivid, original perceptions |
| Ideas | Hume | Faint copies of impressions |
| Phenomenon | Kant | Appearance, object of experience |
| Noumenon | Kant | Thing-in-itself, beyond experience |
| Transcendental | Kant | Concerning conditions of experience |
| Category | Kant | Pure concept of understanding |
| Synthetic a priori | Kant | Necessary truths about experience |

---

## Integration with Repository

### Related Thinkers
- Cross-reference with thinker profiles if available

### Related Themes
- `thoughts/knowledge/`: Epistemology, skepticism
- `thoughts/consciousness/`: Mind-body problem
- `thoughts/existence/`: Substance metaphysics

---

## Reference Files

- `methods.md`: Methodical doubt, empirical analysis, transcendental method
- `vocabulary.md`: Technical terms glossary
- `figures.md`: Major philosophers with key works
- `debates.md`: Central controversies
- `sources.md`: Primary texts and scholarship