Plato and Hume a Comparison

Plato and Hume

A Comparison of Humean Empiricism and Platonic Rationalism

Richard Weaver (1984) describes the breakdown of rational thought in the modern world as stemming from Occam's razor -- or, the gateway to Hume's idea of knowledge as an accumulation of empirical data: "Logic became grammaticized, passing from a science which taught men vere loqui to one which taught recte loqui or from an ontological division by categories to a study of signification, with the inevitable focus upon historical meanings" (p. 7). Weaver's problem is the problem that all modern philosophers must face and that is whether to accept the Platonic idea of rationalism or the skeptic's idea of empirical theory. This paper will compare the two and show why I agree with Weaver and the Platonic idea of rationalism as a better way to objective truth.

David Hume's empirical theory of knowledge is essentially a kind of mathematical philosophy. But rather than attempting to square words (the medium through which philosophers express themselves) with objective reality, Hume attempts to interpret objective reality without relying upon the intellect or, rather, intuition. All knowledge must be born from visible proofs. Thus, words (the meanings of which are doomed to corruption as much as is mortal man himself) fail to define reality, which is relegated to two categories -- "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas" (Hume, 1748) -- and instead, reality must be defined by facts. All facts must be observed and noted and then one can develop conclusions. Essentially, empiricism denies common sense and promotes instead a stubbornness in philosophy to ignore the humble lessons of poetry in favor of the cold, calculating figures of the "scientist."

Platonic rationalism, on the other hand, appeals to the intellect rather than to any accumulation of facts and figures. Reason is viewed as the ultimate component in Plato's philosophy, not "observation." Of course, observation is key in allowing one to inform his reason, but in Platonic rationalism the issue of transcendentals is also of supreme importance. It is, in effect, transcendence that allows one's reason to move upward and above the ordinary and mundane, to reach the sublime truths that inspire human behavior, inquiry, and action. Rationalism is based on logic, or -- rather -- the proper ordering of things. That order, according to Plato, is necessarily hierarchical and his Allegory of the Cave explicitly shows it: the philosopher is one who has striven to leave behind the shadows and worked to climb the hill, until he has reached a revelation of sorts. It is then his duty to go back and instruct the ignorant who still live in the darkness of the cave by appealing to their intellect. While empiricism explains all knowledge as deriving from experience, Rationalism explains all knowledge as logical. In other words, experience is not necessary to gain philosophical wisdom, for the life of the mind allows one to logically grasp one conclusion from the next. Platonic Rationalism emphasizes the intellect over sheets of data.