<em>Question 1:</em>
The debate between rationalism and empiricism takes place in the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge: epistemology. Rationalists argue that we can gain knowledge and experience independently of our senses. Sometimes, the information that we gain through senses is altered or redefined after its encounter with our preconceptions. Moreover, reason can sometimes provide additional information about the world that we cannot gain solely through our senses.
On the other hand, empiricists claim that all our concepts are ultimately derived from our senses, and that this is the only method we have to acquire knowledge. Empiricists are skeptical about the idea of reason as providing knowledge. Some empiricists also claim that if some knowledge is not backed by experience, then we do not really have it.
<em>Question 2:</em>
Freedom is a topic that is often discussed in philosophy, with various authors having very distinct interpretations. In the case of Sartre, total freedom is somewhat limited by responsibility for our actions. This means that we can carry out any type of action, as long as we are prepared to deal with the consequences that it would bring.
For example, we are free to commit a crime, as long as we do not care about the fact that we are affecting or damaging law-abiding citizens, that we might end up going to jail, and that we are undermining the legitimacy of our state and our laws. If we are not prepared to be held responsible for those consequences, then we need to act in a different way (abiding the law). Another example is that we are free to not attend post-secondary education. However, the consequences of this action would be having less opportunities for advancement. On the other hand, studying as an adult would have as consequences less time and money for engaging in other activities.This view manages to bring together the idea of absolute personal freedom with that of accountability.
