In hindsight, Empiricism contributed an overwhelming amount of logic that discredits the Rationalists’ notions of innate ideas. Empiricists such as John Locke suggest that the brain comes literally as a blank slate: an individual must experience by sensation and undergo reflection to learn. This seems to be very similar to the existentialists’ view: an individual’s existence precedes their essence. These separate philosophies hold common values that reinforce each other.
This is very observable in the nature of humans as well as in nature. For example, if knowledge is innate then why do young need to be fostered? The young are fostered because they have not experienced and reflected on the sensations this world offers, and can’t survive until they have learned. Imagine that a person or animal was born and left alone in a dark closed room. The subject’s genetic twin was raised outside the dark room and allowed the same liberties as any other. The subject in the dark room is given items necessary to life such as food and water but nothing else. Now, I suggest this scenario lasts for many years. At some time where the two subjects are of middle age, the subject in the dark room is released. Then the genetic twins must take the same test of knowledge.
The Rationalists offer the same nonsensical logic as Hegel does, insisting something (knowledge in this case) exists and must simply be revealed over time. Therefore, the Rationalists would suggest that if the test was equivalent, the scores of the twins should be equivalent. However, we know this to be quite opposite from the truth. It is very silly to think that the Rationalists’ point-of-view is correct. The Empiricists offer common sense logic, and their theory is much more simple. Moreover, this debate seems to be more concerned with the history of philosophy, as science and technology has advanced rapidly, offering physical proof for modern theories and revealing the limitations thereof.