Essay on Descartes vs Locke

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,

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

The foundations of law have been set in the ideas of natural laws that are given to us. There are many different theories on how our laws of nature have brought us to develop the social contracts and government of today’s society. John Locke and Saint Thomas Aquinas’s views of how social contracts are developed from natural and eternal laws are both well seated in the belief of God given rights, but differ in the politics of the governments.

With the exception of Native Americans, there is no race of people that originated in America. Yet today, we all come together under the colors of red, white and blue, sing the National Anthem and call ourselves "Americans". Despite our differences in religion, norms, values, national origins, our pasts, and our creeds, we all combine under one common denominator. Alain Locke addresses this issue of cultural pluralism in his article, "Who and What is `Negro'?" In this article, Locke states that, "There is, in brief, no `The Negro'. " By this, he means that blacks are not a uniform and unchanging body of people. He emphasizes that we, as Americans, need to mentally mature to a point where we do not view

The concept of self identifies the essence of one’s very being. It implies continuous existence having no other exact equal, i.e. the one and only. Whether or not the specific characteristic(s) used to define self are objectively real, i.e. physical attributes, or purely subjective, i.e. imaginary traits, the concept makes distinct one entity from another. Rationalism is the theory that truth can be derived through use of reason alone. Empiricism, a rival theory, asserts that truth must be established by sensual experience: touch, taste, smell, et al. Rene Descartes, a philosopher and rationalist concluded that one self was merely a continuous awareness of one’s own existence; one’s substance was one’s ability to think. On the other

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

   In the tomes of history, many philosophers have outlined their visions of a perfect society.  Until recently however, few have ventured into the waters of religious tolerance.  One such philosopher was John Locke.  Writing in the late 17th century, Locke advocated a complete separation between church and state.  He argued for an unprecedented tolerance of people of all faiths.   Although Locke's views became widely popular throughout Europe and the Americas, they did not meet with unanimous approval.  Many earlier philosophers disagreed with Locke.  Two such philosophers were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas disagreed in three key respects:  Compulsion, toleration, and authority.  Aristotle, on

The will, at its most basic, consists in saying “yes” or “no” to ideas or propositions. Descartes adopts the position that the free will is independent of the deterministic and fundamental laws that govern matter. Human behavior is neither dictated by mechanical compulsion, nor persuaded or coerced by God, nor influenced by any external force to act in a predetermined manner. Descartes, in a bold stroke, proclaims the divine grace of God along with natural knowledge actually increases and strengthens human freedom, as opposed to restricting its effectiveness.

Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two. Marx was a German political thinker who was best known for his works with idea of communism and social class divisions. Locke was an English philosopher famous for his social contract and is known as the Father of Liberalism (CITE). Despite the paramount success these men achieved, they had radically different views on the idea of property and the description of freedom, finding only minimal similarity on their views on the right to revolt.

Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and

The next two, rationalism and empiricism are the combination of knowledge via science. Knowledge via rationalism involves logical reasoning. It is the combination of stating precise ideas (often in the form of syllogism), applying logical rules, and making logical conclusions based on the ideas. The problem is when the syllogism’s content or either premises is false. The knowledge is not based on the content, but on the logical manner it is presented. Knowledge via empiricism involves gaining knowledge through objective observation and the experiences of one’s senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching (collection of facts), and views knowledge, as “I’ll believe when I see it”.

In conclusion, this paper has explained Descartes view on bodies and animals, and analyzed whether Descartes believed that animals had minds. Explanation of Descartes view of minds and bodies has been provided, indicating that he believed that the mind and body were “tightly jointed”, as well as, his view of how the body would act without a mind. From these explanations, we have been able to conclude and explain why that Descartes would believe that animal do have minds.

In this essay, I will be explaining John Locke’s case of the prince and the cobbler and Bernard Williams’s second description of the A-body person and the B-body person. Bernard Williams has the correct analysis of the situation where the body is part of self-identity since it is inevitable for us to fear future pain.

Providing the 17th century world with an alternative, innovative view on philosophy, politics, economics, and education among other interrelated and important aspects of life, John Locke proved to be a person of immense impact. Born in 1632, in Wrington, England, Locke was the author of many known writings which include the Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), The Two Treaties of Government (1698), A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), and Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693) (Goldie 32). Locke’s writings represent a series of topics involving the purpose of philosophy, emergence of empiricism, and the role as well as limits of governments and churches in terms of liberty and natural rights. In a time where exposure of such

Descartes and Locke also believed in some sense of the external world. Descartes claimed that there is in fact an external world, however it does not exist outside people’s minds (Paquette 206). Since Descartes was a rationalist, he believed that the only method to acquire true knowledge was solely through the mind (Moore 2002). Through the process of doubting existence, Descartes realized that the mind exists (Paquette 205). He went further into thought and concluded that since he, an imperfect person, has knowledge of perfection, something perfect has to exist to have put that knowledge in his mind. From there he claimed the existence of God (Newman 2010). Descartes then stated that a perfect god would not deceive his people, indicating that the material world exists (Newman 2010). Therefore through this thinking process, Descartes came to the conclusion that the real world is of the mind, and the external world is everything else that falls into the material world