How would you describe the rationalist position with regards to our understanding (the truth of) Proposition 1 from Euclid’s geometry?

Use Martin’s characterization of rationalism and select from his presentation of various historical accounts for a priori knowledge, (e.g., Plato, Descartes, Kant) the one you find most appropriate to our example. Is there any possibility still left for the empiricist to challenge rationalism about our knowledge of geometrical constructions? Comparing
Why (not)? Given what you believe about the prospects of an empiricist position about geometry, how does rationalism about arithmetical truths compare with rationalism about geometry, e.g., which of the two do you think is most stable in opposition to (a version of) empiricism? (For bonus points you may introduce arguments for or against rationalism about arithmetical truths presented in Audi Chapter 4 –on Connect)

(1)    How would you describe the rationalist position with regards to our understanding (the truth of) Proposition 1 from Euclid’s geometry?

(2.1) Outline and illustrate briefly what you take to be samples of your knowledge of language (Brook and Stainton 2000, chapter 3).

Do you agree with Chomsky’s elaboration of the nature of knowledge of language as unlike other types of knowledge? If so, why (not)?

Define internalism and externalism about justification, and illustrate their respective limitations through examples of the kind Martin introduces in chapter 4.  Can you sketch a possible compromise between the two radical positions?

Can you sketch a possible compromise between externalism and internalism radical positions?

What consequences can you foresee following your position with regards to the very definition internalism and externalism?