Locke Vs Descartes

563 Words2 Pages

Rene Descartes was a French philosopher known as “the father of modern philosophy”. He was not only a philosopher, but also a mathematician and scientist. Descartes studied the external world and how humans perceive it; which eventually lead him to the study of “self”. He begins by doubting the existence of everything around him, especially materialistic objects. Descartes didn’t believe that the information we receive through our senses are necessarily exact. He suppose that all knowledge of external things exist in the mind. He also believed that the essence of being was thinking, and that the mind was separate from the body (dualism). Descartes accepted the physical world, but he thought it was inferior to the mental rational soul aspect of the human being. Therefore, he concludes that knowledge is attained from our consciousness and innate ideas; which are primarily among mathematical ideas and the idea of Gods existence. …show more content…

He argued that human beings have no inborn, or innate ideas in their minds at the time of birth. Instead he believed that the mind is a clean slate at birth (tabula rasa) and that all knowledge derives from experience. Therefore, Locke believed that direct experience is a more reliable way to acquire knowledge than logic and reason alone as Descartes suggested. In addition, Locke states that there are two different types of qualities called “primary and secondary qualities”. Primary qualities are sensible qualities such as: the physical universe, shape, extension, location and mass. These existences do not depend on perceivers; they depend on matter. Secondary qualities depends on sprit, it has the power to move on its own. For example, color, sounds, will and emotions. However, Locke does agree with Descartes idea about knowing our existence in every act of thinking. In other words, we know that we exist by even doubting our own

Open Document