Locke says that all ideas come from experience and that that experience can be broken into two categories of perception, sensation and reflection. Sensation is what comes from our senses analyzing external objects. To hold an object and feel if it is hot or cold or if it is soft or spiky, sensations come from the senses interacting with external things. Reflection comes from within. It is the mind reflecting and thinking about its own operation. Locke states that reflection is being conscious of the mind and examining “thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing and all the different actings of our own minds”. According to Locke every idea is either derived from sensation or reflection. He states “ he has not any idea in his mind but what one of these two have imprinted.” Locke goes on to explain evidence to support this by using children as an example. By simply being alive in the world children are being imprinted with infinite amounts of ideas as they experience things like light and color and tough and smell. If a child never tasted an apple they would not have the idea of what an apple tastes, it would need to come from the sensation or through the senses. Children do not obtain ideas through reflection because it takes more attention and contemplation. Children are too occupied with gaining ideas through external objects and sensation to concentrate on reflection and it only occurs once the child gets older. Besides classifying the process of gaining ideas as sensation and reflection Locke also talks of primary and secondary ideas. Primary ideas come through one sense, while secondary ideas come through multiple senses. This concept is important in Locke’s idea of sense impressions and obtaining
Hume is an empiricist; he believes humans acquire their knowledge through sense perception and experience. He believes that there are two types of perceptions in this world that contributes to how we obtain our knowledge: impressions and ideas. Impressions involve taking in objects through the senses, whereas ideas involve remembering said objects. Hume has the belief that we as people combine ideas together to create something; you can’t come up with an object unless you’ve had the experience of it. In contrast Descartes is a rationalist, someone who believes in indubitable truths. In his eyes, knowledge is innate, and acquired to a person before birth. He also thinks there is only one divine being that is innate, and that is God. Hume’s idea of empiricism is better than Descartes’ idea of rationalism.
In his book Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes tries to accomplish several subject concerns. Firstly, Descartes attempts to accomplish the use of methodological doubt to rid himself of all beliefs that could be false. Then, he arrives at particular beliefs that could not possibly be false. Next, he discovers a criterion of knowledge. Also, he proves that the mind is distinct from the body and also the existence of God.
We have all been groomed to believe that we are born with instincts or innate ideas. Locke puts this topic into question and does not immediately reject it but does so with evidence. He believes that innate ideas- something that has been there from the beginning- are non existent. His argument that supports this, in Book I of An Essay Concerning Human Understan...
Descartes argues in favor of human reasoning, involving innate ideas and subsequent deductions, as the sole avenue toward reaching this certain knowledge. On the other hand, Locke does not invest himself in the possibility of achieving any knowledge that can be claimed as a universal truth. Rather than this, Locke favored the idea that experience can lead individuals to knowledge that is most probable. Ultimately, these two philosophies cannot reconcile themselves together because of a core divergence on the question of the origins of knowledge. As Locke’s argument finds itself dependent on the concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” at birth, this doctrine surpasses Descartes’ assertion of innate knowledge and, by extension, systematic doubt. For readers, the acceptance of the mind as a blank slate invariably leads to an acceptance of Locke’s reasoning above Descartes’. The argument propelling Locke’s essay and the improbability of innate knowledge favors the idea that there can be no universal truths and that, since individuals are born without any truths evident to them, they must depend entirely on sensory perception of the external world on which to base the beginnings of their knowledge. To support this, Locke considers how children gain knowledge of the world in small increments, as opposed to possessing an extensive knowledge from the time of their birth. Locke discusses that an individual with exposure solely to black and white would be absolutely unaware of scarlet or green, just like children are ignorant of the taste or texture of pineapples and oysters until they first taste
Descartes sets apart ideas into three distinct categories: Innate, Factitious (self-evident), or Adventitious. Adventitious ideas are unique in the way they do not originate from within a human; rather they are a culmination of many sense experiences. An example of this can be seen in the idea
In what is widely considered his most important work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke establishes the principles of modern Empiricism. In this book he dismisses the rationalist concept of innate ideas and argues instead that the mind is a tabula rasa. Locke believed that the mind was a tabula rasa that was marked by experience and reject the Rationalist notion that the mind could perceive some truths directly, without sensory experience. The concept of tabula
John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.
The argument referring to the nature of human beings and government is one that been debated for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order was established—is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only
Descartes, father of modern philosophy, lived during the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution moved away from religion and focused more on science. Descartes wanted to change the traditional way of learn, which was the Aristotelian way of learning. Descartes created his Meditations on First Philosophy, by publishing these works he hoped to provide a strong establishment for all the sciences and all knowledge in order to discover all truths. Descartes created a total of six meditations but we only studied one, two and three; therefore, I will be analyzing the ones we discussed in class in order to understand what Descartes is attempting to express.
After denying the concept of innate ideas, Locke comes to the obvious question of, “How comes it to be furnished?” (Stumpf and Fieser, 195). Answering simply and concisely, Locke offers two explanations. Firstly, ideas come about through sensations, which refer to conditions that are caused by actions of external...
The Rule of Law has always been a widely discussed topic throughout the history of modern political thinking. It can be defined as, “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law” (Dictionary.com). English philosopher John Locke and Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau have both developed well-rounded and detailed accounts on the Rule of Law and its crucial role in ensuring democracy and freedom in society. Despite the undeniable success and importance of their works and ideas, I believe ________ constructed a more persuasive and influential argument in explaining the extensive effects of the Rule of Law on government and society.
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
In this paper I tried to explain the similarities and differences between Locke and Descartes’s philosophies. According to me I found out that the similarities did not have a significant impact on judging their philosophical theories. The differences helped me understand better about their philosophies. Both philosophers present to us a modern theory of knowledge and abandon the older traditions that were skeptic in their approach. To summarise as a whole this paper explains to us about the ideas of self, innate ideas and knowledge. Even though they had two distinct explanations to these theories, they still took into account each other’s perception trying to come to the best conclusion as possible.
Philosophers tend to be of those rare breed of individuals who have their unique outlook on life and on the world in general. When looking at the philosophers who lived around the end of the Renaissance period, common themes of mortality, human nature, and the divine all tend to get blurred into overarching ideologies about the world and the nature of humanity in general. While not all philosophers focus on the same idea of humanity and the human condition, John Locke and David Hume both took particular interest in the ways that humans view themselves, the world around them, and the subject of identity of self in contrast to the universe. Through analysis of John Locke’s perspectives as shown in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding