Today we will talk about realism vs empiricism. In philosophy, realism is the belief that the world exists independently of our perception. Whether we see, hear, or experience something, it remains real. This view suggests that there are objective truths about the world that are not dependent on our sensory experiences. Whether we observe it or not, the world exists as it is. This position is often associated with thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and later Immanuel Kant in certain contexts.
Take gravity, for example. A realist would say that gravity exists whether or not humans ever discovered it. Even if no one had ever dropped an apple, the force pulling objects toward the Earth would still be there.
On the other hand, Empiricism is a philosophy that centers on experience and sensory perception as the foundation of knowledge. Empiricists argue that all knowledge comes from what we can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell. John Locke, one of the most famous empiricists, compared the human mind to a blank slate—or tabula rasa—suggesting that we are born without innate ideas and gain knowledge only through experience. Empiricism has greatly influenced the development of the scientific method, which relies on observation and experimentation rather than abstract reasoning alone.
A classic example? The existence of God. Realists might argue that God exists whether we believe in Him or not. Empiricists might say that without sensory proof, we can’t claim certainty.
At first glance, realism and empiricism might seem opposed, but they have historically influenced each other. Consider Isaac Newton. He believed in a world governed by laws—something a realist might endorse—but he arrived at his conclusions through empirical observations. Similarly, modern science often operates with a realist assumption that physical laws exist while using empirical methods to discover them.