Rene Descartes and John Locke are both philosophers with two different views how we obtain knowledge. Descartes believes we cannot believe our senses and begins to question lifetime and we can not really know what real is. John Locke feels that all knowledge comes from experience, and nothing is innate. It really is argued that just how knowledge is obtained is by our senses.
Descartes begins by denying Aristotle's teachings that all knowledge arises from the senses. According to the Stamford Encyclopedia of Idea (SEP), Aristotle says "There is certainly little or nothing in intellect that was no previously in the senses". Aristotle also says that as children we are naturally led by our senses in seeking befits and staying away from bodily harms. As a result, when we develop into adults we are "immersed" in the torso and the senses, and so we acknowledge the view that the senses are the basis for studying the nature of fact. Descartes believes that individual intellect is able to perceive the nature of simple fact through intellectual understanding. Based on the Stamford Encyclopedia of School of thought Descartes says "in order to understand the fundamental truths of metaphysics we must reject the mind from the senses and change to out innate ideas of the essences of things such as mind, matter and infinite being. "
Descartes arises with six meditations two of which will be explained. In Meditation I Descartes helps people withdraw off their senses. To get this done you must first suspect your commonsense since it is a couple of beliefs that is dependant on your sight, reading, tastes, smelling and touching. "in the present I've accepted as most true and certain I've discovered either from the senses or through the senses but it sometimes proven if you ask me that the senses are deceptive which is wiser to not trust totally to anything to which one has been deceived"(Descartes 188). He's expressing that he used to count on his senses for information and they have sometimes lied to him so he cannon trust something if it has given him false information. Descartes magic if he could be dreaming all of his activities since a in a desire everything can seem perfectly normal as though we have been awake. He says " I am a man and consequently I am in the behavior of sleeping and in my own dreams representing to myself or sometimes even less probable things, then those who find themselves inane in their waking moments"(Descartes 188). This means since he is human being he sleeps and his dreams show him doing significantly less than possible things. He also says "I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we might clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleeping i am lost in astonishment" (189), which he is stating that dreams are so real that is hard to understand the difference between being awake and being in a dream. Descartes starts to doubt characteristics all together and even starts to suspect his own body. Since man can fantasy that the body can transform, he begins to mistrust weather one will indeed have a body and starts to ponder about the presence of an "external world". Descartes does however consider the Arithmetic, geometry and other sciences cannot deceive him because, two plus three will usually equal five no matter how you will check out a square it'll will have four sides to it. Descartes next commences to suspect his inventor (god) and ask himself weather god would deceive him and says, "God has not desired that I will be thus deceived for He's reported to be supremely good"(Descartes 189) he comes to the final outcome that god is good and wouldn't normally deceive him. Finally to conclude Meditations I Descartes says that not a good god but an evil genius, a demon is constantly deceiving him, he says "equally as a captive who enjoys an imaginary liberty, when he commences to imagine that his liberty is but a desire, concerns to awaken and conspires with these agreeable illusions" (Descartes 190) Which means that we perfect that everything is good and when we awaken to the truth we start to fear and agree with the illusions.
In Descartes Meditations II he talks about the existence of god. Descartes talks about how he was persuaded that there is nothing in all the world, there was no heaven, earth, no thoughts, nor any physiques, moreover persuaded that I did not are present. However she says "I myself do can be found since I persuaded myself of something, but you can find some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, whoever uses his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I can be found also if he deceives me and let him deceive me around he will because I could never be nothing at all as long as I think I am something. He is saying that since he has the ability to influence himself of something that he must can be found but there may be some higher figure whose main purpose is to deceive him and make him feel he is nothing however he'll never be nothing because I can think he's something. (Descartes 192). This brings us to his theory, I think therefore I am. Descartes knows that he is accessible but just what is he? He believes he is something feels. He says "I believed myself to be a man, but what is a man? Shall I say an acceptable animal? Definitely not because i quickly have to find out what's an pet animal and what is reasonable"(Descartes 192). This says he is aware of he is a guy but doesn't really know what a man is, he would call man an acceptable animal but then he would have to determine what's considered an canine and what is considered realistic. "I considered myself as using a face, hands, biceps and triceps, and all that systems of customers composed of bones and flesh as seen in a corpse, that i chosen by the name body. "I considered that we was nourished, which i walked, which i felt, which i thought. I referred all these actions to the spirit. "(Descartes 192). In such a he is expressing he knows he has all the top features of what is called a body and he has a soul since he is nourished can walk, has feelings and thoughts. "I am however a real thing that feels and really can be found, but what thing. What is a thing that feels? It really is a think which concerns, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and seems. "(Descartes 193), Within this Descartes says that he is a genuine thing and something thinks which is to question, understand, affirm and refuse various activities or thoughts. Descartes comes to the conclusion that we are present because we think which god are present because without him we would not can be found.
John Locke's An Essay Concerning Individual Understanding states that knowledge comes from experience. Which means that ideas can't be delivered into our thoughts and we learn ideas through our own activities. He refuses the idea of "innate ideas" or ideas that are born into us. Some men assume that there are specific understandings stamped to their minds at beginning; Locke says "men scarcely by the use of their natural faculties may attain to all knowledge they have, with no help of any innate impressions and may reach certainty, without any such original notions or rules"(Locke 198). Locke says how man hardly use their natural mental capabilities may attain to all the knowledge they have without the utilization of their innate impressions. He thinks that mankind should have a agreed belief, "Universally agreed after by all mankind, which therefore, they dispute must have to be constant impressions that your souls of the men obtain in their first beings, and that they bring into the world with them, as necessarily and really as they certainly inherent faculties. " (Locke 198). He's saying that all mankind must acknowledge certain things that are received when first brought in to the world. Locke says that common consent proves nothing innate, "drawn from widespread consent, has this misfortune in it, that if it were true in matter of truth that there have been certain truths wherein all mankind agreed, it could not show them to be innate, if there can be any other way shown how men may come to that universal agreement in the things they certainly consent in, that i presume may be achieved. " (Locke 198). If all mankind arises with knowledge they were born with it could not verify anything is innate because they can find another way to come up with general consent. He battles the innate quarrels "Whatsoever is, is and it is impossible for the same thing to be rather than to be" contain the most allowed title to be called innate however Locke believes "These have so settled trustworthiness of maxims universally received that it'll without doubt be though bizarre if anyone should seem to question it. Yet I take liberty to say that these propositions are so far from getting a universal assent that we now have great elements of mankind to whom they aren't a lot known. (Locke 198). In such a quote Locke says that yes these arguments are the closes points towards being innate but there are a large part of mankind who does not know these arguments therefore they can not be innate. One of is own final items are "It is evident that all children and idiots havent the least apprehension or thought of them, and the want of this is enough to kill that general assent which must must be necessary concomitant of most innate truths, it seeming if you ask me near a contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the soul which it identified to understand not. For to imprint anything on the mind without your brain perceiving it appears to me barely intelligible. If therefore children and idiots have souls, have brains, with those impressions after them, they need to unavoidably understand them and know the truths. (Locke 198-199). Since children and idiots cannot know what is considered to be innate understating that are imprinted on your brain then they aren't innate and how can they be unidentified. Locke believes that our minds are blank tablets and we load those tablets with this activities. Locke next argues the thought of sensations saying that it's constituted naturally and in a position to have an effect on our senses and cause any perceptions of the mind. He continues on to state that the ideas of temperature and wintry, light and darkness, white and dark-colored are each two completely different things which we understand. He says that the mind arises with ideas which he calling quality and is convinced there are primary and secondary qualities. Locke says we see most important features as an items body and supplementary characteristics as properties of those objects and will be the capabilities that produce these objects. For instance a principal quality is a table and its supplementary characteristics could be its dark brown color, or soft touch, and hard surface etc. . . Locke phone calls this the Everyday Theory of Understanding. What Locke is saying in this passing is the fact everything we perceive has two attributes female and secondary. The principal is the genuine subject itself and the extra will be the characteristics of this object. He goes on to issue Descartes belief of the life of god. He says " the data of the lifestyle of anything we can have only by perception for there being no necessary connexion of real existence with any idea a guy hath in his memory space nor other life but that of god with the lifestyle of any particular man, no man can know he particular life of every other being" (Locke 205). What Locke says is there is not a proof of the lifetime of god and he's an idea inside our head and an idea is "produced in our brains" (Locke 202). Locke says " we talk or think of any particular type of corporeal chemicals as horse, natural stone, etc, though the idea we have of either of them be but the complication of assortment of those several ideas of smart features which we used to unite in the thing called a horse, stone, yet since we have to not perceive that they should subsist alone, nor one in another, we suppose them existing in, and supported by common subject, which support we denote by the name substance, though it be clear certain we've no clear or distinct idea of that thing we suppose a support" (Locke 208). What Locke is saying is a horse or a stone have various characteristics and those attributes put together offers us a horse or a natural stone, however is you divide those qualities you'd be unable to identify them. For instance a stone has a hard, sharp appear and feel to it but put hard and well-defined separately and there is absolutely no particular way to picture it by itself.
John Locke has some valid points when talking about sensations how some characteristics mutually make an thing but apart they are simply unidentifiable, however I feel Descartes makes a more powerful point to his quarrels of lifetime, our senses can easily deceive us any to comprehend who we are really we need to understand where we result from and what we realize to be true from everything we were given birth to with.
March 17, 2013
A Search for Knowledge Descartes V Locke
Solomon, Robert. Higgins, Kathleen. Martin, Clancy. Bringing out Idea: A Text with Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford University or college Press, 2012
Uzgalis, William, "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Idea (Semester 2012 Model), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), Link = <http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/fall2012/entries/locke/>.
Hatfield, Gary, "Rene Descartes", The Stanford Encyclopedia of School of thought (Warmer summer months 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), URL = <http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2011/entries/descartes/>.