Two Other Philosophers, John Locke, And George Berkeley

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

John Locke was a Western philosopher who first published writings regarding natural rights; he laid these rights out to be life, liberty and property. Locke was one of the many 17th century Enlightenment thinkers who influenced people all over Europe and America. Such American Patriots, who were influenced by Locke, used his ideas to stake their claim of independence from Britain. Thomas Jefferson, a Patriot and founding father of America, applied Locke’s ideas of natural rights in his writing of the American Declaration of Independence and his argument against British control of the colonies. One oppressed group in America, the blacks, petitioned Jefferson to use his new position of power in the American government to promote equality in society. Benjamin Banneker, an educated free black living in Maryland, wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter in response to Jefferson’s Notes On The State of Virginia in which Jefferson states his beliefs concerning slavery and race inequality. By elevating Jefferson’s status, manipulating Jefferson’s own arguments and highlighting his own accomplishments, Banneker’s letter helps refute Jefferson’s claims of black inferiority and justification of slavery.

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

John Locke thought that the ideas or perceptions which we have of objects in the world partially represent the objects as they are in themselves, and so whether they are being perceived. This view of Locke’s is called representative realism. The term realism refers to the view that objects are real or exist apart from perception. And representative means that some of our perceptions accurately represent an object as the thing which it is in itself apart from perception. Locke thought that only some of our ideas or perceptions are accurate representations of the object itself, and that

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

Secondly, George Berkeley, a representational idealist, believes that knowledge comes from experience, but he perceives his thoughts in a different way then Locke. He doesn't believe that things from your senses can be reality. Berkeley believes that if our minds did not produce an idea, then God delivered and perceived his experiences to us, but he also says that empiricism and Christianity cannot be used together. We have a small role to play out and God makes sure that everything gets done. Berkeley was very mind dependent; he had faith that there is no world without a mind. With this in mind, he felt that all objects we encounter in experience are nothing more than mind-dependent collections of ideas. This is known as Esse est percipi, or "To be is to be perceived." He also believed that reality is nonphysical and everything that exists is either minds or the ideas they perceive.

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

Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate ideas then they would be universal ideas present

     Locke instead is an empiricist, and therefore he directly critiques Descartes epistemic system and tries to establish his own foundation of knowledge. Locke believes that our knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. Locke’s theory state that we are all born with a blank slate, tabula rasa, before we

Conversely, Locke felt that individuals gained knowledge through real world experiences. He believed in two kinds of complex ideas: ideas of substances and ideas of modes. In The

When considering knowledge, Locke is interested in the ability for us to know something, the capacity of gathering and using information and understanding the limits of what we know. He believes this also leads him to realise what we perhaps, cannot know. [1] He wants to find out about the origin of our ideas. His main stand-point is that we don’t have innate ideas and he aims to get rid of the sceptical doubt about what we know. The innate ideas which Locke sets out to argue against are those which “the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it”. [2] “Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters”. [3] This quote depicts the idea of the “Tabula Rasa”, that at birth are minds

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)

John Locke (1632-1704) and William Godwin (1756-1836) were both English philosophers. Locke and Godwin discuss their views on the origin, purpose as well as extent of authority of a government in their publications. Locke felt that government originated from a social contract and advocated governments which respected their citizens while Godwin saw any form of government as a form of evil thus he advocated self-government and believed that having no government was the ideal state but in the event of being under a government, minimal authority should be exercised. This essay discusses the difference in their views and I will pay attention to the extent of government authority.

According to Berkeley, the world does not exist on its own, perceptions solely do. However, the world does not exist independently of the mind. Berkeley 's argument relies on the existence of a God, who keeps things in place when a person is absent or not around. Hume believes that things including people are nothing but what he perceives as “bundles of perceptions”. He claims that people infer the objective world based on perceived unity and continuity in our observations. Meanwhile, Locke compares the mind to a blank piece of paper. He states, “white paper, void of all characters, without any