Locke’s Logical Plain Method
As those philosophers before him, or at least as far back as Descartes, John Locke is “perplexed with obscure terms and useless question” (qtd. in Jones 238), and is interested in starting fresh and free from the opinions of his predecessors. He devises the historical plain method in order to examine the knowledge we posses, with the assumption that the mind is “white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas,” (qtd. in Jones 245). My interest here, however, is to briefly describe, and to evaluate Locke’s historical plain method. The following passages are to demonstrate the chief values and key limitations of the historical plain method as it pertains to its own investigation of what is true from experience, and to show that Locke mistakes a logical approach for a historical approach, meaning that his method is a logical plain method.
The historical plain method allows us to distinguish between what is true, and therefore important enough to warrant our consideration, and what is fantasy and not worth our time. It accomplishes this by examining an object to see whether it has originated from our sense perception, and is thus a sensation, or from the operations of the mind, and thus a reflection. If the object is thus found to have its origins in either the senses or the mind, then it is to be a true object, or one that does exist.
Objects that are conveyed by the senses are such as “hard,” “red,” “loud,” and the like. Some are combinations of more than one simple idea derived from more than one sensory input. In the case of “fast,” the speed of something can both be derived from seeing motion as well as feeling motion. Objects conveyed by the operations of the mind are such a...
... middle of paper ...
... reality of objects, but it may not have the ability to be proven beyond any doubt, and is thus less certain than the logical inquiry.
Locke’s historical plain method, named so incorrectly, endeavors to show what is true and false, what is meaningful and meaningless, and therefore, what is important and what is not important. By examining objects it deems to demonstrate their origin as being of sensation or reflection. Since Locke assumed all ideas to be based on simple elements however, he pursued in that direction, which is a psychological and logical one. Thus, Locke developed the logical plain method, but mistakenly named it the historical plain method. For the historical order begins with the objects, and through investigation of it, we derive its simple elements.
Works Cited
Jones, W. T. Hobbes to Hume. 2nd edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1980.
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience (Locke, 1690/1947, bk. II, chap. 1, p.26).
Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way
Similar to a church altar where baptisms take place, the speaker begins by depicting the bench press as an altar of change and transformation. Illustrating the setting in this manner suggests that the speaker begins to wonders what drives the bodybuilder to lift an inanimate object repeatedly w...
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
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.
Behaviorism is a foundational theory in the world of psychology. However, behaviorism though it was a flourishing influential idea during the beginnings of psychology, it suffered a decline when other aspects of scientific research entered the psychology practice. Behaviorism was the scientific study of behavior. A plethora of great thinkers have made their marks with discoveries in behaviorism but B.F. Skinner was one of the most influential thinkers during the decline of behaviorism and the rise of experimental psychology.
Locke's Essay is one of the classical documents of British empirical philosophy. His official concern is with epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Locke sees the u...
Hume’s discussion of the “Operations of the Understanding” (Hume 15) ably frames a first comparison with Descartes. Hume divides the objects of human inquiry and reasoning into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Matters of fact occur in nature and their opposites are conceivable. Relations of ideas are “intuitively or demonstratively certain” (15) and pertain to the disciplines of geometry and algebra. Reason can discover relations of ideas in the realm of thought “without dependence on what is any where existent in the universe” (15) and the opposite of these propositions are inconceivable cont...
John Locke possesses many characteristics of an idealist. However, he also believes that we were created by God and that we our morally obligated to preserve ourselves and the rest of humankind. How he can come to this conclusion when he believes we have no pre-knowledge of anything is somewhat disturbing. If we only perceive things with our senses, or though our own mind reflection how is this logic possible? It seems to be a contradiction in th...
This essay discusses John Locke statement: “it is as insignificant to ask, whether Man’s Will be free, as to ask, whether his Sleep be Swift, or his Vertue square: Liberty being as little applicable to the Will, as swiftness of Motion is to Sleep, or squareness to Vertue.” Locke came to this conclusion while writing on the subject Of Power in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Subsequently, I argue whether Locke is successful in establishing this parameter against the Will’s being Free. I conclude that Locke makes an inconsistent and unclear argument about this specific subject. This conclusion will be address in this essay. In order to perform this task, I will first state the argument that Locke makes. An explanation of the argument will follow after. Next, I will offer an argument that contradicts Locke’s view. Finally, I will demonstrate how Locke’s argument can be attacked, making it unstable to its previous claim.
Family Guy, an animated sitcom about a New England family and their everyday dilemmas, is a way for viewers to see the comedic side of a dysfunctional family. The Griffins consist of Peter and Lois, the patriarch and matriarch, and Meg, Chris, and Stewie are the children(Family Guy). Every character is different from the next character. They are also weird in their own way. The television show itself displays feminism, structuralism, and gay and lesbian criticism. Each character in the show also displays those criticisms in a certain fashion. Family Guy can be offensive to viewers with its satire, and the way the show delivers its message can make the family and the other characters in the show seem dysfunctional.
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers that believe in different things. They have things in common such as the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. The relationship between our thoughts and the world around us consisted of concepts which were developed from these philosophers. I have argued that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different believes.
Summary- This book expert describes the fundamentals, history, and changes associated with Artificial Intelligence from 1950’s onward. The book provides a basic explanation that Artificial Intelligence involves simulating human behavior or performance using encoded thought processes and reasoning with electronic free standing components that do mechanical work.
With each of our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hear), information is transmitted to the brain. Psychologists find it problematic to explain the processes in which the physical energy that is received by the sense organs can form the foundation of perceptual experience. Perception is not a direct mirroring of stimulus, but a compound messy pattern dependent on the simultaneous activity of neurons. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into perceptions of laptops, music, flowers, food, and cars; into sights, sounds, smells, taste ...
Throughout the story the mother of Paul speaks about not having enough money to be where they want to be financially. They have more than enough money for compared to an average family, but they want more and more. Paul attempts to solve this issue by winning bets and giving his mother money secretly, in hope the voices would go away. The boy would hear the house ecko, “There must be more money, there must be more money, there must be more money!” (Page 1248)The parents obviously cared substantially about their social status and would prefer to not live a normal life and live well with access money, but rather, a luxurious on that can not be paid