A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology

Others interpret warrant more conservatively, say as belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of that caliber.

Descartes claims that knowledge requires certainty and that certainty about the external world is beyond what empirical evidence can provide. To illustrate the difference between these interpretations consider the following comparison.

Locke: Knowledge of the External World

Ideas of substances, by contrast, purport to represent an individual or kind of individual. Again, contrast sensitive knowledge with intuitive knowledge of the meaning of a term. There may be tremendous evidence supporting the theory that describes the underlying microstructure of these hunks of stuff and even explains why a microstructure of that type produces the appearances you now see.

Cambridge University Press, The idea of actual sensation is an idea of reflection; an idea of the mental faculty responsible for producing the idea of the sun in the mind at that time. Descartes says that the self is, and is only, the thinking soul. It appears, then, that this idea of a necessary connection among events arises from a number of similar instances which occur, of the constant conjunction of these events; nor can that idea ever be suggested by any one of these instances surveyed in all possible lights and positions.

A skeptic could, of course, question the force of this reason. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. When you said to your friend that there was a water fountain over there, the knowledge of real existence you expressed was of this third kind.

Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding. The what and the how combine to place some severe limits on what Locke thinks we can know about the external world.

The views of the individual philosophers are more subtle and complex than the simple-minded classification suggests. Second, rationalists must give an account of innate knowledge that maintains and explains the distinction between innate knowledge and a posteriori knowledge, and it is not clear that they will be able to do so within such an account of warrant.

Young children and people from other cultures do not consciously entertain the concept of God and have not done so.

503 Service Temporarily Unavailable

That is, radical skepticism amounts to doubting that when an idea of a crimson water fountain is stamped with the idea of actual sensation, the idea of the crimson water fountain really is received through sensation.

The main concern motivating the rationalist should be familiar by now: The nature of the experience-belief relation seems quite similar in each. At this point, if there is to be any hope, we ought to take a step back and ask: For reasons that go beyond the scope of this entry, Locke does not take our ideas of either kind to represent mind-independent reality.

Although I believe I have pointed to a number of undeniable similarities, I have not sketched anything resembling an overview of the philosophies of Descartes or Locke.

How we know it is through sensation—through the reception of ideas into our minds. Insofar as they maintain that our knowledge of necessary truths in mathematics or elsewhere by intuition and deduction is substantive knowledge of the external world, they owe us an account of this form of necessity.

It is just part of our nature. Locke does not think that other minds affect us directly through our senses. As you look at the water fountain you know that it now exists.

Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again.

Locke, in other words, might be taken to collapse the distinction between real existence and real for practical purposes of guiding our action with respect to pleasure and pain.compare and contrast. scroll to top. Epistemology Essay Examples. 27 total results. A Comparison Between the Concepts of Metaphysics and Epistemology.

words. 1 page. A Comparison of Perspectives of Descartes and Locke Regarding Epistemology. 1, words.

3 pages. The Argument of the Rhetorical Question and. DESCARTES AND LOCKE (Knowledge) One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge.

In this paper, I will consider the differences similarities between Descartes’ and Locke’s’ philosophies. I will also then discuss a few important differences in their theories of knowledge, specifically the distinction between rationalism and empiricism and the question of the existence of innate ideas.

What is the difference between Descartes and Locke's view on human knowledge? Update Cancel. Descartes: 1) Descartes' Epistemology (a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, Descartes vs.

Locke The concept of the human mind: Descartes vs. Locke. While Descartes does not pontificate the details of such identity to the extent in which Locke does there is a very evident connection between his view of epistemology and identity.

In contrast to Descartes, Locke’s theory of personal cannot be understand prima facie from his epistemic view, but nonetheless is a ground-breaking contribution.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Both Descartes and Locke attempt to find answers to the same questions in metaphysics and epistemology; among these: What is knowledge? Is there certainty in knowledge?

Is there certainty in knowledge?

A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology
Rated 5/5 based on 72 review