Compare And Contrast John Locke And Descartes

Throughout history, there have been many prolific philosophers and writers who have created works and writings that have advanced the way society thinks about their lives and what exactly they want from the world. What they presented ranged from something as simple as new ideas and theories, or as large as a revolution. There are some, although barring a few differences, that tried to present similar ideas and writings to cause a change in processes and a different mindset for the people. Take the theories from John Locke’s The Social Contract and Thomas Paine’s radical beliefs from The Age of Reason. Both of these men attempted to introduce a change in the way society thought and lived through both their own opinions and the idea that all people are entitled certain rights upon birth. The two had similar reasoning and ideals when they were describing their vision of an ideal society. Although the two presented their beliefs for different reasons, both John Locke and Thomas Paine’s writings resulted in a major impact on the minds of the people, as well as changes in society, for years to come.

Great Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean –Jacque Rousseau had been deeply concerned about the Social Contract Theories on the people. The main theories include safety, security, equal rights and have an organised society without any foreign interference. The use of non-violence and war against mankind. Society as a whole was the main priority for all these three philosophers. Both John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau had different views when compared to Thomas Hobbes on Society. Each of these men had their own theories on how to protect the rights of human beings. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau have better ideas than Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that only a true and clean government can rule the people and protect their

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

Locke’s states that “All knowledge comes from the senses through experience” interpreted when Locke’s “blank slate” idea to when we are kids we know nothing. Our brains have to make connections to things and these connections are gained through experience and continues

John Locke and Edmund Burke were two champions for the theory of change in the world of political philosophy during the seventeenth century. Locke is largely known for pushing liberalism in influencing the American and French political revolution period while Burk is known for taking a more placid approach to promoting modern conservatism. Set out in different time period, both thinkers focus on the purpose of the government, its structure and functions, laws of nature and the characteristics of man in and out of nature as a state. It is quite common to misunderstand and misinterpret the aspect of the revolutionary fight as a collective calling for everyone. Not everyone was an intransigent fighter for the revolution, a fact that has often clouded our current notions and ideals in identifying the true assessment of the mind state of the political period in late 18th century. Understanding this, it becomes easier to vision the element of division in terms of personal perspective and mindset, with various powers of thoughts colliding with each other. As such, Locke and Burke represent a political contentious period where these two philosophers who were not necessarily on polar opposites stand strong in championing their beliefs and remain worth contenders.

Locke looked at the world from the point of view of his senses, and he wanted to understand how an individual’s senses may alter the world to one versus another. “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking.” (An Essay Concerning Human

Furthermore, Locke’s profound analysis on sources of knowledge contributed to today’s psychological analysis of the unsolved dilemma of nature versus nurture while significantly shaping the foundation of modern psychology. As Locke introduced empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he was an important figure of Enlightenment to foster and alternate the schools of thinking in many spheres including here philosophy and psychology among many others.

Within our history, political thinkers have viewed labor and property as the fundamental key of the evolutions in governments and in countries, thus, showing the importance’s of it in our society. Some may suggest that the idea of property had formed the governments to create property laws and rights, to legitimatize those that own property. Other could view labor and property as a social agreement/contract or our natural rights. Everyone has their own perception how property is obtained and the limits of the property. Some could even consider property as fair and views it as practical to own. The focus of this paper is John Lock and Karl Marx.

In trying to find the correct answers to problems that have the same main idea, it is what knowing really is, and the different reasons that are have to do with process of taking in this information. Although Descartes and Locke based their studies on similar ideas, their views and perceptions were really different. Their overall knowledge and their overall views are characterized by their differences, not their similarities. Descartes had many philosophers who opposed his viewpoints, but the person who criticized his philosophy was another philosopher by the name John Locke. I do not totally agree with Descartes point of view or his philosophical perception that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that we are always under the attack

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Like Descartes, Locke also believed in an external world. As an empiricist, Locke relied heavily on the senses to provide true knowledge (Moore 2002). He shared Aristotle’s belief that the mind is a blank slate, also known as tabula rasa, at birth (Paquette 211). Our sense experiences thereafter provide us with knowledge to fill in those slates (Paquette 211). In Locke’s “Representative Theory of Perception,” also known as Epistemological Dualism, he stated that material objects exist and are separate entities from human beings (Paquette 227). However, he also believed that objects exist in the mind as psychological entities (Paquette 227). Locke concluded that people can taste, smell, touch, and see the external world which, in turn, becomes impressions in our minds (Paquette 227). Descartes and Locke are thus seen to be similar in the sense that they both believed in an external world.

Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas.  Then the question arises of

John Locke starts off his treatise with the thesis that ideas spring from two fountainheads--sensation and reflection. The former, man acquires from external sensible objects that affect man's five senses--those same senses endowed upon all men by the Creator. Material things outside man's being are the objects of sensation. Through experiencing sensation, man's thinking process gives rise to ideas thereby gaining for the thinking being a certain amount of

All ideas we experience derive from sensations and perception. Sensation obviously uses the bodily senses to receive ideas, whereas reflection uses the body’s own procedures to receive ideas like thinking, believing and doubting. [4] Both of these processes are passive. The corpuscular hypothesis, which Locke expanded on from Boyle’s original thoughts, seems to suggest that everything in existence are colourless, tasteless, soundless and odourless corpuscles of matter. By looking at the bits of matter and their motions, it is possible for us to explain the sensations we gain from primary and secondary

Rene Descartes was a rationalist who believed that knowledge of the world can be gained by the exercise of pure reason, while empiricist like Locke believed that knowledge of the world came through senses. Descartes from his meditations deduced from intuitive first principles the existence of self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance and the extended body as a material substance whereas Locke, asserts that knowledge is acquired through perception, direct sensory of the world, reflections, the mental processes of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and comparing them, conceptualizing them and recommending them to form new philosophies.