The world is composed of infinate binary opposites. Rationalists and Empiricists could be considered one of the multiple bianary opposites. They are very different philosophies that rose during the enlightenment period but it's influences can be traced back to ancient Greece. These two very different ways to se the world were thought of by Descartes and Spinoza (Rationalists) and Locke, Hume and Berkely (Empiricists). A simple way of finding which you incline to ask yourself this, which motivates you more a universal principle or emotions/ thoughts/ senses? If you chose a universal principle you are most likely a rationalist and if you chose emothios you are most likely and Empiricist. Rationalists only belive in reason and do not trust their senses at all. Empiricists on the other hand believe that nothing in the mind does not come from the senses. Personally, I believe that it is the world around us that determines who we are. I am motivated by my emotions because understanding one's emotions is what gets a person trhough life. Living on a principle is not personal or individualistic.
The only thing that we can be sure of is that we think, according to rationalists. We think, therefore we exists. This is the concept though of by Descartes. His core belief was that if we can think of something, it must be real. This is how he justified the existance of God. Since ideas are always there and we do not pick up ideas from our senses, if we can imagine a perfect being, it must exist. Descartes also separated mind and body, making him a dualist. Spinoza was another rationalist but he was quite different from Descartes. He was a monist, first or all, that combined the two substances of the universe into one.
According to empiricists, our mind is influenced by the world around us. Locke said that we are born as a "blank slate" and that our senses and the nature aound us define who we are. Empericists trusted their senses unlike rationalists and said that we cannot pick up ideas without our senses. Hume was an agnostic who said that we can think of God because we can think of the components that make up God such as justice and benvolance. He also introduced the induction fallacy which stated that no matter how much it happens, it is not a law. Empiricists did not believe in jumping to conclusions. Berkely, another empiricist, said that the only thing that we percieve is God and that we don't experience the material world.
These two philosophies contrasted each other even at the most basic levels. Where do we get our ideas? According to rationalists they are always there and we cannot trust our senses becuase they are decieving. The there are empericists that say no, we can trust our senses and we cannot think of anything that we cannot sense. Rationalists thought that mathematics were more important because they didn't necesarily apply to the physical world. Empiricists said that experiments are more important because they deal woth the physical world. A rationlaits would most likely live by a principle while an Empiricist would most like live by his/her emotions/senses/thoughts.
Rationalists and Empericists are polar opposites. One believes on reason and the other in senses. On says that we can justify anything brcause we can think of it and the other says that abstract ideas come from copying and pasting concrete ideas together. The only thing that Rationalism and Empiricism have in common is that they have both been very influential to the modern world and philosophy.
