Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast john locke and descartes
Compare and contrast john locke and descartes
Rene descartes vs john locke
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare and contrast john locke and descartes
John Locke and René Descartes were both early seventeenth century philosophers striving to explain or answer the great questions of their time. What is the mind or self and how does it relate to the brain? How can we gain knowledge? Are we the same person we were several years ago? These two great philosophers had similar and conflicting views on these various questions of life. Locke was influenced by his readings of Descartes and adopted some of his philosophical terminology and thought. Considering this influence they still present different philosophies. These different philosophies stem from the two original schools of thought in epistemology; the study of knowledge. Descartes was a fierce rationalist meaning that he believed that …show more content…
They belonged to two different schools of thought empiricism and rationalism. A specific difference between the two philosophers was their trust of the senses. Descartes had a very deep mistrust of the senses finding them to be very misleading. In many of his philosophical writings he claimed that people should doubt the senses and that excising pure rational thought can produce answers. Descartes being a rationalist believed people were born with some innate thought. For Locke this could not be further from the truth. Locke's idea was that true knowledge only comes from the senses. He believes that people are born with nothing their minds empty of innate thought and this was a strong argument. How can someone have knowledge without at least one of the senses? Hume strengthened the claims of Locke by stating, “A blind man can form no notion of colours; a deaf man of sounds. Restore either of them that sense in which he is deficient; by opening this new inlet for his sensations, you also open an inlet for the ideas; and he finds no difficulty in conceiving these objects” (Hume). Locke's other argument against Descartes mediation of God being an innate thought also has compelling points. John Locke points out how God cannot be an innate thought due to the fact that it is not universally agreed upon. Descartes being a dualist provides further conflicting views with Locke. Descartes believed the …show more content…
If I had to pick between the two philosophers my views would align more with those of Locke but I cannot say that I do not believe in some of the writings of Descartes. I believe that our senses are not fully reliable but I do believe they have a key role in how we process things. Locke purposes very strong arguments against the mediations of Descartes. I find Locke to be very intuitive with his philosophies especially regarding personal identity which can go along with theories of Descartes. Many of the early philosophers believed in the resurrection of the body and were concerned with something happening to their body after death. Locke's theory of personal identity completely avoided this issue. This is where my view align with those of Locke. He believed that the connection of memories is what made people who they are not the physical body. The reason of my support in the ideas of Locke are based in his theories of personal identity and that we need our senses to obtain knowledge. Without some of our senses we would be unable to process information correctly. A deaf man can not have a deep understanding or appreciation of music without being introduced to his sense of sound. A blind man could not appreciate art or an understanding of colors without first being introduced to his sense of sight. I do have some disagreement within this theory . I
Locke believes that everyone is born as a blank slate. According to Locke there is no innate human nature but human nature is something we create. And because we are born as an equal blank slate all men have the opportunity to create human nature therefore Locke believed all men are created equal. Unlike Bentham Locke believed that government needed to take a step back and allow for each individual to have the right to three things: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Governments role should not be in dictating people what to do but to allow individuals to their three
Our principals and beliefs people choose to follow in life are based on experiences, sensations, and reflections, they are not innate in nature. Even though our knowledge and ideas come from experience, sensation, and reflections, Socrates states in “The Allegory of the Cave”, our minds can create false realities that we may perceive as being the truth. Locke’s beliefs in this essay are very similar to mine, almost exact. I do not believe that we have innate ideas. I believe that everybody has different minds and opinions. At the top of this essay there is a quote that states, rationalist are like spiders who ‘spin webs out of themselves’ while empiricist are more like bees who ‘collect material from the outside world and turn it into something valuable’”(qtd. in Thompson). The way I see it, everybody learns from experience. For example, in lacrosse everybody sucks in the beginning because they lack the experience of playing but with practice, they gain knowledge and experience of the game. Another aspect that I agree with Locke on is how nobody has the same principles and can change and form their own. I think that everybody has the freedom and the consciousness to make there own principles and ideas, which is one thing that make us
Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
John Locke's account of knowledge can be summed up in that we can know ideas of modes and not ideas of substances. This will become much clearer as we delve into why and how John Locke comes to this conclusion. To begin with, John Locke throws away the longstanding notion that we can have innate ideas, thus disallowing those ideas to play a part in justified knowledge. Locke's argument is that if innate ideas exist, then they must be in every single human without them being taught. Locke points out that there is no justification of this. If innate ideas existed, then wouldn't infants and those with a lack of intelligent know them as well? Locke states that innate ideas are not in these individuals. Innate idea enthusiasts would state then that they would have to be shown the way to recover these innate ideas. Locke again argues against this by stating that if one has to use reason to know innate ideas, then one couldn’t tell ...
In conclusion, these two philosophers have different ideas on where innate ideas come from. What are we suppose to believe? Descartes theory that innate ideas come from God, and that God instills these ideas on us at birth. Also, do we think that the idea of God is an innate idea? Or do we take Locke's theory that you aren't born with the idea it's received through your senses and experiences? Your mind furnishes these ideas. I would like to think we weren't all idiots and weren't a blank tablet, but only time will tell. These two extremely different ideas show that this argument is far from over, and maybe Descartes and Locke now know the truth resting in their graves.
John Locke’s writings came at a time when there was a philosophical debate going on between the empiricists and the rationalists. The rationalists believed that true knowledge came through certainty and rationalist philosophers such as Descartes believed in the existence of ideas and knowledge at birth. Meanwhile, the empiricists believed that the senses were pivotal to one’s ability to become cognizant of knowledge of the world. They believed that everything originates with and in experience. Being that he was an empiricists, this was the belief of John Locke.
John Locke was a philosopher during the 1600’s in Europe. He was known as a empiricist philosopher. An empiricist is a philosopher who believes knowledge can come only from sense experiences.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding his primary thesis is our ideas come from experience, that the human mind from birth is a blank slate. (Tabula Rasa) Only experience leaves an impression in our brain. “External objects impinge on our senses,” which interpret ate our perceptions of various objects. The senses fill the mind with content. Nothing can exist in the mind that was not first experienced by the senses. Dualism resembles Locke’s theory that your mind cannot perceive something that the senses already have or they come in through the minds reflection on its own operation. Locke classifies ideas as either simple or complex, simple ideas being the building blocks for complex ideas.
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
Descartes states: “By the word ‘God’ I understand a substance that is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created myself and anything else that may exist. “The more carefully I concentrate on these attributes, the less possible it seems that any of them could have originated from me alone. So this whole discussion implies that God necessarily exists.” (Descartes, 14) Locke states: “First, God is without beginning, eternal, unalterable, and everywhere, and therefore concerning his identity there can be no doubt.” (Locke,
Descartes believes that the mind and body are separate of one another causing the problem to form in the transmission of information between the mind and the body. Hume does not conquer this task of mind and body one or separate. He is more concerned with the idea of self and how one is maintained over a period of time. He believes there is no such thing as self. That each moment we are a new being due to the fact that we are forever changing and nothing remains constant within ourselves. Yes, our DNA may be the same but that is not
They both divide their metaphysics and epistemology into two sections. Descartes explains his in two meditations while Locke explains his in two qualities. They both describe how the mind plays a very important part in describing what is real. Of course the mind is a main factor for humans to describe what is real and how we receive our knowledge but they both explain their theories in different ways. Descartes explains that our main source of knowledge comes from our sense perception. In his theory we have to doubt our perceptions and ideas. In his view nothing is certain but us, he makes it simple by saying “I think therefore I am. He uses the immaterial mind to explain the existence of things. Locke on the other hand believes that our main source of knowledge is sensory experience. Locke provides strong evidence of his theory but his theory is known as one of the most confusing in his work. He views that without experience or reason, we have to question our reality and the external world we live in. Through experience comes sensation and reflection and that is how we know what is real because all ideas to form complex ideas come from those two
Therefore whilst the body itself can be doubted the soul cannot, following this he states that the body and soul cannot be one and the same. They must in fact be separate and distinct entities. The inescapable conclusion Descartes comes to is that he possesses mind, his ‘thinking being’, as distinct from his body. He saw the mind and body as existing in two different states of being- the mental and the physical. The mind is’ non-spatial’, it experiences thought, feelings, desires and emotions. The body is located in time and space in a physical sense. This opposes the original statement as it suggests that the body and the soul are in fact separate entities. However Descartes ‘observation is criticised by Brian Davies who challenges this idea stating that just because he can consider himself to be sober does not in actual fact mean that he is, Descartes theory is limited somewhat ironically only by his own thoughts, and the fact that the human mind is far more complex and often times deceptive than we perceive it to be. Another key critic of Descartes dualist view is that of Gilbert Ryle who likened the dualist view to the , 'doctrine of the ghost in the machine ' and argued that it rested upon merely a, ' categorical mistake ' as the soul itself is not a separate entity from the body but only understandable in relation to the body. Ergo Descartes description of the souls residence, a ‘principal seat in the little gland which exists in the middle of the brain, from whence it radiates forth through all the remainder of the body ', conveys that whilst he considers the soul to be non-physical he gives it a physical location, which seems
Despite what might be expected, Locke and Descartes correlation are that they had studied epistemology but had different views on the ways of knowledge. Locke was an empiricist who believed that people are born with a "blank slate" Locke does not trust that there is a specific knowledge. John Locke tries to explain the brain during childbirth is a clear slate. Which is then reinforce with sensory experiences that are composing. Locke aims to say that knowledge is an absolute predicament to a very high degree. Locke claims that innate ideas cannot do anything for our knowledge. He claims that if you have any kind of knowledge you must have something to basically prove where that knowledge comes from. He also claims that knowledge of objectivity