search
Only on Eduzaurus

Theories of knowledge of Descartes and Locke

Download essay Need help with essay?
Need help with writing assignment?
75
writers online
to help you with essay
Download PDF

Descartes and Locke are both considered as two of the primary early modern philosophers in the seventeenth century. Descartes and Locke are both attempting to find an answer to the same questions in epistemology such as what is knowledge and is their certainty in knowledge? Descartes, a French rationalist who believes there is certain knowledge and that human reason, innate and deduction is the only foundation of such knowledge. Locke, who is an English empiricist, believes that knowledge is not certain, but an extremely probable knowledge that can gatherer from experience. The idea of certain knowledge arising from experience is inconceivable to Descartes, just as the existence of innate ideas in the mind is unacceptable to Locke.

Descartes went to school and received an education. He is the first great continental Rationalist, conceived of knowledge as entirely a priority. He questioned about knowledge what he had learned in school. He believed that school will be helpful even he doesn’t go school far enough in his life. He believed that school is the first a small part in life. It’s not just only he learned in school is enough for him and he believed that there was so much more to learn that he needed to know. He questioned himself that schools didn’t have the answers of what he is looking for and this led him to believe that school wasn’t going to help him in the future because he wasn’t getting answers of what he wants to know. When Descartes finished with school, he found himself in many doubts and want to know what the world was about. Descartes main theory is that knowledge relies on entire certainty and that some moralities are known by humans. He is also talking about Cogito Evgo Sum which is “I think, therefore I am”, the protest of Descartes is the bible. Descartes further believes that there is such knowledge of the being of the self and that God’s existence. Descartes think that it is true like mathematics and talk about God is powerful and loving. God is not lying, God is not devil and god exists, thinking you exist, and the world exists. You can’t trust your senses.

Essay due? We'll write it for you!

Any subject

Min. 3-hour delivery

Pay if satisfied

Get your price

As for Descartes, he believes the knowledge is depending on the absolute certainty. He definite the knowledge cannot come from the outside world and he believes that experience and deductions are two ways of determining knowledge. If the knowledge didn’t come from within then the knowledge must come from the experience of the outside world. Further, he believes in contrast to the view that assumption can never be done wrong by brainpower which is in the least degree of rational. Therefore, deductive knowledge is the only certain of knowledge. These principles are exposed by natural light and cannot be in any way being open to doubt. He believes that these principles are innate.

As for Locke, he is the first of the great British Empiricists, conceived of knowledge as entirely posterior. He comes into two forms which are Sensation and reflection. From sensation and reflection, we form simple ideas and from simple ideas, the mind compounds complex idea. Locke doesn’t believe that there is certain of knowledge. He believes that all ideas come from sensation and reflection and that all knowledge founded on experience. John Locke questions philosophers like René Descartes. Locke argues that the human mind doesn’t have innate, intuitive ideas but rather humans are born with a reasoning. Locke took his model the experimental method of the new science, such as physics, astronomy, and medicine. He refuses the theory of innate ideas by charging that the arguments site in support of it do not actually prove it and that those who cite them do not pay enough attention to an altogether different and simpler explanation of the source of our ideas.

Locke believes that humans are not born with simple principles of sense such as a triangle has three sides because these ideas are innate. Locke assesses the possibility of innate theoretical principles. Locke’s response to the idea of innate ideas is that it is unclear. He questions the concept and believes that it is impossible for something to be in the mind without one being aware of it. He concludes that in order for something to be in the mind, to be mental, it has to be conscious. Locke analyzes the problems of memory. He said People are not conscious of memories however they are in the mind. There is also non-conscious principles and knowledge. In order for innate ideas to get into the mind, we had one time to be conscious and aware of these memories. He also says the mind is mirror natural.

Locke criticizes the truth of innate principles. He questions that the theories and emphasizes that if in fact there are any innate principles, then everyone would agree to them. There are no principles that everyone will agree upon therefore, there are no innate principles. Locke is very right in indicating that there are no moralities to which everybody would agree upon. He proves his logical argument as proof, the nativist (which it believes in the existence of innate principles) believes that there are certain theoretical principles to which everyone would agree to which Locke disagrees. Locke instead is an empiricist, and therefore he directly criticisms Descartes epistemic system and tries to prove his own foundation of knowledge. Lock believes that our knowledge comes from what our sense tells us.

The comparative of Descartes and Lock is that both beliefs in methods, they started with doubtful about knowledge and they are not grounded in the religion. Anti-authority isn’t grounded first in faith. Descartes was a rationalist, one who holds that knowledge of the world can be gained by exercise of pure reason, while Locke was an empiricist, one who believes that knowledge of the world comes only through the senses. Descartes is more into an innate idea, accountable to reason and Lock is not into the innate idea and reason ground. Accordingly, Descartes in his meditation attempts to deduce from intuitive first principles existence of the self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance, and of extended bodies as a material substance. Lock, however, asserts that we acquire knowledge by sensation, direct sensory impressions of the external world and reflection, the mental process of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and comparing them, abstracting them and recombining them to form new ideas.

I agree with both of Descartes and Lock. As for the Descartes, both philosophers are abandoning older traditions and offering new ways of looking at knowledge and skepticism. I believe that it is not entirely right to say that their philosophies are different and leave it at that. Everything that happens will dependent upon, and follow from, the nature of a God, who is the creator of the world and that’s in it and the constant cause of its continued existence and activity. God is extremely good, so the world that He chooses to create and sustain must be good as well. He is saying that the knowledge of God is innate in us. For me, Descartes is right, that God’s will and providence are beyond our understanding.

Descartes and Locke are both considered as two of the primary early modern philosophers in the seventeenth century. Descartes and Locke are both attempting to find an answer to the same questions in epistemology such as what is knowledge and is their certainty in knowledge? Descartes, a French rationalist who believes there is certain knowledge and that human reason, innate and deduction is the only foundation of such knowledge. Locke, who is an English empiricist, believes that knowledge is not certain, but an extremely probable knowledge that can gatherer from experience. The idea of certain knowledge arising from experience is inconceivable to Descartes, just as the existence of innate ideas in the mind is unacceptable to Locke.

Descartes went to school and received an education. He is the first great continental Rationalist, conceived of knowledge as entirely a priority. He questioned about knowledge what he had learned in school. He believed that school will be helpful even he doesn’t go school far enough in his life. He believed that school is the first a small part in life. It’s not just only he learned in school is enough for him and he believed that there was so much more to learn that he needed to know. He questioned himself that schools didn’t have the answers of what he is looking for and this led him to believe that school wasn’t going to help him in the future because he wasn’t getting answers of what he wants to know. When Descartes finished with school, he found himself in many doubts and want to know what the world was about. Descartes main theory is that knowledge relies on entire certainty and that some moralities are known by humans. He is also talking about Cogito Evgo Sum which is “I think, therefore I am”, the protest of Descartes is the bible. Descartes further believes that there is such knowledge of the being of the self and that God’s existence. Descartes think that it is true like mathematics and talk about God is powerful and loving. God is not lying, God is not devil and god exists, thinking you exist, and the world exists. You can’t trust your senses.

As for Descartes, he believes the knowledge is depending on the absolute certainty. He definite the knowledge cannot come from the outside world and he believes that experience and deductions are two ways of determining knowledge. If the knowledge didn’t come from within then the knowledge must come from the experience of the outside world. Further, he believes in contrast to the view that assumption can never be done wrong by brainpower which is in the least degree of rational. Therefore, deductive knowledge is the only certain of knowledge. These principles are exposed by natural light and cannot be in any way being open to doubt. He believes that these principles are innate.

As for Locke, he is the first of the great British Empiricists, conceived of knowledge as entirely posterior. He comes into two forms which are Sensation and reflection. From sensation and reflection, we form simple ideas and from simple ideas, the mind compounds complex idea. Locke doesn’t believe that there is certain of knowledge. He believes that all ideas come from sensation and reflection and that all knowledge founded on experience. John Locke questions philosophers like René Descartes. Locke argues that the human mind doesn’t have innate, intuitive ideas but rather humans are born with a reasoning. Locke took his model the experimental method of the new science, such as physics, astronomy, and medicine. He refuses the theory of innate ideas by charging that the arguments site in support of it do not actually prove it and that those who cite them do not pay enough attention to an altogether different and simpler explanation of the source of our ideas.

Locke believes that humans are not born with simple principles of sense such as a triangle has three sides because these ideas are innate. Locke assesses the possibility of innate theoretical principles. Locke’s response to the idea of innate ideas is that it is unclear. He questions the concept and believes that it is impossible for something to be in the mind without one being aware of it. He concludes that in order for something to be in the mind, to be mental, it has to be conscious. Locke analyzes the problems of memory. He said People are not conscious of memories however they are in the mind. There is also non-conscious principles and knowledge. In order for innate ideas to get into the mind, we had one time to be conscious and aware of these memories. He also says the mind is mirror natural.

Locke criticizes the truth of innate principles. He questions that the theories and emphasizes that if in fact there are any innate principles, then everyone would agree to them. There are no principles that everyone will agree upon therefore, there are no innate principles. Locke is very right in indicating that there are no moralities to which everybody would agree upon. He proves his logical argument as proof, the nativist (which it believes in the existence of innate principles) believes that there are certain theoretical principles to which everyone would agree to which Locke disagrees. Locke instead is an empiricist, and therefore he directly criticisms Descartes epistemic system and tries to prove his own foundation of knowledge. Lock believes that our knowledge comes from what our sense tells us.

The comparative of Descartes and Lock is that both beliefs in methods, they started with doubtful about knowledge and they are not grounded in the religion. Anti-authority isn’t grounded first in faith. Descartes was a rationalist, one who holds that knowledge of the world can be gained by exercise of pure reason, while Locke was an empiricist, one who believes that knowledge of the world comes only through the senses. Descartes is more into an innate idea, accountable to reason and Lock is not into the innate idea and reason ground. Accordingly, Descartes in his meditation attempts to deduce from intuitive first principles existence of the self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance, and of extended bodies as a material substance. Lock, however, asserts that we acquire knowledge by sensation, direct sensory impressions of the external world and reflection, the mental process of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and comparing them, abstracting them and recombining them to form new ideas.

I agree with both of Descartes and Lock. As for the Descartes, both philosophers are abandoning older traditions and offering new ways of looking at knowledge and skepticism. I believe that it is not entirely right to say that their philosophies are different and leave it at that. Everything that happens will dependent upon, and follow from, the nature of a God, who is the creator of the world and that’s in it and the constant cause of its continued existence and activity. God is extremely good, so the world that He chooses to create and sustain must be good as well. He is saying that the knowledge of God is innate in us. For me, Descartes is right, that God’s will and providence are beyond our understanding.

Disclaimer

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.

We use cookies to offer you the best experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our Cookies policy.

background

Want to get a custom essay from scratch?

Do not miss your deadline waiting for inspiration!

Our writers will handle essay of any difficulty in no time.