Rene Descartes And John Locke

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,

An emergence from the state of nature to civilization drives man to ponder the role of government in his life. Democracy, defined broadly as an institution in which citizens in some capacity determine the actions of the commonwealth, has drawn both praise and criticism. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and John-Jacques Rousseau all present differing opinions of democracy in their respective texts. While Hobbes rejects the notion based on man’s inability to think of others, Locke and Rousseau both engage it within their theories to varying extents while simultaneously offering doubt about the reality of it.

From the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and Sparta to the United States, societies and civilizations have been the cornerstone of human history. However, the formation of these concepts do not simply appear but must instead be created. Thus the concept of a ‘Social Contract’ was formed by philosophers as a means to better understand why individuals would come together to form a society. Two philosophers, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, give their respective opinions on what is the role and purpose of a “Social Contact’ in their works the “Second Treatise on Government” and “Of the Social Contract”.

In trying to find the right answers to problems that are related, it is what knowing really is, and the different reasons that are involved in the process of taking in such 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 criticised 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 by someone

In trying to find the right answers to problems that are related, it is what knowing really is, and the different reasons that are involved in the process of taking in such 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 by someone

Phones are our generation’s tool to research and socialize. Phones can be our mini portable computer. At Anaheim High School, an issue occurs about cyberbullying. As a result, phones are restricted to be used during school hours. They took the freedom to play games, listen to music, social media while they’re not doing anything. This prevents students from amusing themselves using their phones. Phones are important for students for it is an excellent way to entertain ourselves when we’re bored. Locke and Rousseau would have agreed with them. Locke would have protected their freedom and Rousseau would’ve treated all the students as individuals and not a group.

The state has many components to how it is ran and how we the people and other inhabitants treat it and maintain it. The state came to be, due to the help of men and how the state even may result in a change to the man. To start a state came with the execution and copious amount of plans by many men. This also gave thought to how the state should be ran and how it would operate as a whole. Three theorists that give shape to how the state was formed are John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau. There was also the influence of two theories that helped to better layout the viewpoints of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau.

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, actions, and decisions, between what is right or good, and what is wrong or bad. It can also be characterized as a body of principles or standards, derived from religion, philosophy or culture. There are different proposed systems of expressing morality, which include deontological and utilitarianism ethical systems, among others. Many philosophers have been attempting to explain the actual meaning of morality. Both Jean Rousseau and John Locke advocated religious tolerance, human morality, and political liberalism, but greatly differed on the human nature conceptions. Their differences were inclined on both their attitude and the system itself. They promoted freedom and reason, which are

In this paper I will discuss the question of innate ideas and also discuss the disagreements of two philosophers. The two philosophers I will discuss are John Locke and Leibniz. They disagree in the idea of innate ideas. But first before describing their disagreements I will discuss what innate ideas are. Innate ideas are ideas that by God, and at birth, were imprinted on us. There are some concepts of rational natures that we have. For example, innate knowledge can be one plus one equaling two, and innate concept can be color or causation. The big question is if there really is a such thing as innate ideas. Does all knowledge come from experience, or are we born with these ideas?

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.

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher in 18th century London, England. Influenced by the works of John Locke and David Hume, he brought up a philosophical theory that derives from an empirical viewpoint, which means theorizes that all knowledge are obtained through our sense experience. Bentham was considered as the founder of utilitarianism which he defines as, “the ethical doctrine that virtue is based upon utility and that behavior should have as its goal the procurement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of persons. “. In other words, Bentham believes that all our actions should be decided by comparing how much utility, or pleasure, it could be derived for society as a whole. For example, the utility result of you pulling an all-nighter to complete your philosophy paper would be the pleasure of getting a significantly good grade compared to the pain of having little sleep for one night.

Locke was an empiricist who believed all knowledge was gained through sense experience. He referred to the mind at birth as a ‘tabula rasa’, ‘clean slate’, thus demonstrating that we are born without any knowledge, and the only way to gain knowledge is through our

John Locke (1632-1704) was the first of the classical British empiricists. (Empiricists believed that all knowledge derives from experience. These philosophers were hostile to rationalistic metaphysics, particularly to its unbridled use of speculation, its grandiose claims, and its epistemology grounded in innate ideas) If Locke could account of all human knowledge without making reference to innate ideas, then his theory would be simpler, hence better, than that of Descartes. He wrote, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas: How comes it to be furnished? To his I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.” (Donald Palmer, p.165)

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.

The subject of essence is not something that the average person thinks about everyday, or ever in their life. There are several varying arguments over essence including arguments from John Locke, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Georg W. F. Hegel. Two of these men argue that essence is something that we gain later in life once we have made the choice of who we want to be. The third argues that we all have the same essence from the time we are born. The arguments of these three philosophers will become very important in answering the question: Is it true or plausible that we humans have no essence until we choose to have an essence? Jean-Paul Sartre and Georg W. F. Hegel will support the affirmative