Locke vs Descartes
... In the following paper, I will discuss the opinions of rationalist Rene Descartes, and empiricist John Locke Ironically, Descartes’ beliefs sound more irrational than rational. Locke’s ideas seem more logical and reasonable. ... In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes describes his “method of doubt. ... Descartes cannot have faith that he is even sitting there looking at the paper before him: “But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there re no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment” (116). ... Descartes offers this as proof of God’s existence: “By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. ... Locke does not hold the opinion that we are impressed with innate ideas at birth. ... Locke reminds us that “children and idiots” have no concept of these innate principles they speak of: “For, first, it is evident that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them [innate ideas]. ... Locke defines reflection as the “perception of the operations of our own mind” (129). ... They are not inherent in the objects themselves and are considered by Locke to be secondary qualities. Descartes methods are creative, but they lack believability. ... Locke, however, has a much more reasonable explanation for how we obtain ideas. ... As Locke believes, an innate idea of God is not evident in children or the mentally challenged. ... Descartes’ proof is fallacious in itself. ... I agree with Locke that sensation is the most heavily relied upon and reliable supplier of knowledge. ... Descartes’ method of completely rejecting sensations is unreasonable. ... Descartes’ “method of doubt” is fundamentally too doubtful. ... Locke’s common sense take on achieving knowledge is more applicable to the world, more believable, and, I believe, closer to the truth.