This discussion is comparing and contrasting the rationalist, empiricist, scholastic, and associationist viewpoints of reality and describing how they interpret reality.

1) What are your thoughts on the content of this discussion below. How does this person interpret reality? Do you agree or disagree?

There are many different viewpoints of reality. Rationalism underlying position is that knowledge is derived from reason. Rationalists believe we have innate ideas, organization tendencies, or innate cognitive mechanisms which determine the nature of human knowledge.

Empiricist underlying position refers to the blank slate. Philosopher John Locke argues that we are born with the mechanism for forming associations but the initial source of knowledge about the organization of the external world is through sensory information.

Scholastics which were church scholars developed variations on the rationalist and empiricist themes identify by Plato and Aristotle. They debated the nature of knowledge and in so doing hypothesized the nature of the minds representation of the world.

Associationism believes that knowledge is represented in the mind as a state of associations. They have similarities in that they all have to do with the mind and reality. They are different though in that rationalist believes that the mind constructs reality. Empiricism believes that experience constructs the mind. Scholastics debate the nature of knowledge. And Associationism shows how knowledge is represented by associations.

I interpret reality as what is here. What I can see, hear, touch, and smell. If I can experience it with my sensory motors it is perceived as reality. Day to day struggles as well as day to day goals and joys are reality to me. What is realistic and not far fetch and out of reach. If it is made up it is not reality.