Compare And Contrast Descartes And Locke

Good Essays

Are humans born with any kind of innate knowledge or is everything we know learned from experience? Descartes and Locke have opposing viewpoints on this subject. In Descartes meditations, he shows his belief for innate thinking through his development of thoughts throughout his work. Locke’s essays actually go to combat against those views by using plenty of examples and arguments. Who is right, though? In this essay, both views will be evaluated and Locke’s viewpoint will be combatted. Locke missed possible innate knowledge when explaining why it is not valid. In Descartes meditations, he states that he has accepted that the truest thing he can learn from is his senses. Even though senses can deceive if items are miniscual or far away, he does not worry himself, for he knows that he is not insane. He is also convinced that when he dreams that he senses actual objects. These objects come from experiences he has had in waking experiences. He compares this experience to how painters create creatures of fiction. Even when painters create centars and mermaids, they are using already existing things – men and horses and women and fish in this case. …show more content…

Though he lists existence and identity as ideas that the supporter of innate knowledge believes humanity is born with, he left out a few that could be added. Children do not hide emotions or their opinions. They tell someone if they dislike them or if they find them visually unpleasing without a second thought. They also never fear to share how they feel or call a person out on being angry. It baffles them why an adult will say one thing and completely mean another. Honesty is an innate knowledge. Humans are not taught to be upfront with their thought and feelings, only to lie about them. After adolescence, youth are trained to bottle up emotion, keep their opinions to themselves, and never say that they are anything but

Get Access