moe23 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 hey everyone, i need some help...what were the main differences between John Locke's and Descartes theory of knowledge? Thx a lot Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeStijl Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 There's actually quite a bit of information regarding both of these 17th century philosophers all over the Internet. Nevertheless, because I appear to be doing everything within my power to NOT complete my Extended Essay, I'll help you out. Basically, Descartes and Locke were attempting to "discover" solutions to quite analogous problems, such as what knowledge specifically is, and the various factors that are involved in the process of acquiring said knowledge. Although they based their studies on similar issues, their approaches were quite different. For instance, Locke was a very pragmatic individual who centred his arguments around logic and reasoning. Believing that humans encompassed no innate ideas, he claimed that the mind was a "tabula rasa" or "blank slate". Our ideas and knowledge stem from sensation and reflection - in other words, personal experience. Descartes, however, asserted that the senses were key in obtaining knowledge, and human intellect is based on what is inherently within us from birth. Additionally, Descartes also made the proposition that anything that can be doubted must not exist. Because he could not doubt his thoughts, he devised the phrase "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore I am". Locke, on the other hand, did not believe that knowledge depended on complete and total certainty. His rational mindset caused him to consider the senses to be an unreliable source for attaining knowledge, and therefore, disputed Descartes' claims. These are just some general ideas. You may find it helpful to do some research and reading on rationalism and empiricism, which correlate to the beliefs of Descartes and Locke respectively. *nods* I definitely hope that this can get you started! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe23 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Thx a lot Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
balloon Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Locke also believed that objective knowledege could be obtained by inferring. He believed that by having full knowledge of our biological and phychological limitations, as well as acknowledging that what we DO percieve MUST be a reflection of the objective, that we could 'guess' the objective in a way. The example used often is that we perceive light as colour, but we have inferred that the 'objective' state of colour has something to do with split d-orbits and the excitation of electrons, releasing photons of light. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.