In Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences by Rene Descartes, and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke, Descartes and Locke both speak on the subject of truth. Both authors emphasize their need to reach life’s truths but go about it in different ways.

Descartes believes that in order to find life’s truths, he must first abandon everything they have been educated in and start fresh. After doing so, he set off to travel and learn from “the great book of the world” (1) with an unclouded mind. Locke, on the other hand, believed that the only truths that need to be discovered are things that are true to each unique individual. He states that everyone starts off life with a blank, white paper and over time our experiences furnish the paper. In the end, this book is filled with all our own unique truths, truths that may not be true to someone else.

If Descartes and Locke were to speak to each other they would conflict over the degree of certainty of their truths. Descartes was very strict with making sure his truths were in fact true. He created his own set of guidelines when searching for truths. His first rule was to only believe things that he can prove himself. His second rule was to reduce every problem to its simplest parts, and to proceed through his thoughts in an orderly fashion from simplest part to most complex. His last rule was to create a long chain of reasoning and leave nothing out when solving a problem. (2) That being said, it is clear that Descartes is really focused on finding truths that are true universally.

Locke was less focused on the certainty of his truths. He believes that through the use of reason we can come to a certain degree of knowledge. He didn’t have any strict guidelines like Descartes did. Also, since he thought that peoples’ experiences define their own truths, his definition of truth may not be a “universal fact” since each individual has different experiences.

According to John Locke, knowledge is not innate and that all knowledge come from experiences. He believes that “ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects” (Locke, 1). He presents the example of human understanding of colors is given by God. In addition, Locke denies the idea of innate principles by arguing that if there were innate ideas, then they would immediately be known to children, yet they are not. “If therefore these two propositions: ‘Whatsoever is, is;’ and, ‘It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be,’ are by nature imprinted, children cannot be ignorant of them” (Locke,3). On the other hand, Rene Descartes says “good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others” (1). He believes that everyone is equally endowed with reason, only the accidental or external parts are different.

Secondly, Descartes believes that knowledge depends on certainty. When knowledge can’t be extracted from experiences, it can be achieved by deductive reasoning similar to how mathematical proofs are derived from complex propositions. Descartes says “provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another” (11).  In contrast, Locke says that all ideas come from sensation and reflection besides experiences. “the senses convey into the mind, I mean, they from external objects convey into the mind what produces there those perceptions. This great source of most of the ideas we have, depending wholly upon our senses” (Locke, 6). Descartes objects “neither our imagination nor our senses can give us assurance of anything” (22). He thinks that senses can be deceitful.

Both Descartes and Locke believe that ideas have to be in our minds to be understood, that ideas must be thought of to exist. Additionally, a lot of Locke’s text seems to expand on Descartes’ ideas. They both touch on the concept of gaining knowledge and understanding with a clear mind. Descartes started his journey by first abandoning all opinions gathered from his formal education in order to learn more about “the great book of the world” with no obstructing views (6.) Likewise, Locke introduces the idea of the mind as “white paper [tabula rasa], void of all characters without any ideas” (5). He sees experience as the way to “furnish” and “paint” the mind (5).
However, if they were to speak to each other, it would be evident that Locke desires to challenge Descartes on many of the latter’s ideas, one being the topic of innateness. Descartes suggests that some ideas are innate, such as the existence of one’s self. Locke, however, believes that no ideas are innate. For a principle to be innate, it must be universally assented to, but Locke argues that there is no principle “to which all mankind give an universal assent” to, and therefore no idea or principle is innate (2). Additionally, he contends that the existence of the self is not known to “children and idiots,” and therefore cannot possibly be innate (2).
Descartes also believes in certainty. At first, one of his maxims was when making a decision even in the face of uncertainty – pick the most probable choice. Later on, he changed his mind, deciding to reject a decision altogether if he is not fully certain over it: “I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt” (19). Despite the change in maxim, the idea of absolute certainty’s existence remains consistent throughout his beliefs. Locke, on the other hand, is not too concerned with the absolute certainty of knowledge, but focuses more on the means of obtaining a certain degree of it. He believes that through the senses and “the use of reason we are capable to come to a certain knowledge” (4).
This is another realm in which Descartes and Locke differ. Descartes’ whole method comes from his belief that knowledge obtained through deduction is the only certain kind. Since “our senses sometimes deceive us…and…some men err in reasoning,” he believes the best route to knowledge is one that forgoes observation (19). On the other hand, Locke believes that knowledge and understanding stem from experience, which is made up of sensation and reflection. He states, “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects or…the internal operations of our minds…is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking” (6). Since Locke does not mind knowledge that is not absolutely certain, he is open-minded to sources that have potential errors in their midst.
Descartes and Locke touch upon similar topics, but their opinions and approaches on knowledge and reasoning differ greatly.

I felt that in both readings that were assigned there was a unified theme,  which is the search for truths. In the Rene Descartes article he mentions that, even with all of the disciplines and knowledge he attained in school there were still questions that no text book or reading was going to answer, more of a internal understanding of what one perceives as truth.  In the John Locke piece he mentions that man is not permitted to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth and both points are similar in the idea that one had to believe in a ideology, a practice or a thought for it to be considered truth and even then it varies on ones experience in coming to that conclusion of that truth.  I liked that Rene journeys he had a set of rules that made him less objective, judgmental to others thoughts and beliefs , I felt that his method did allow him to look past his own views and not limit himself to his own view to learn more.
I like how in both articles there is a questioning of the conventional thought and that limits do more harm then good, I personally believe that one should always challenge them selves and there way of thinking for personal growth.

James Marcus Bach’s, “Secrets of a Buccaneer Scholar” challenges the idea that one needs to go to school to be successful. He uses his own life experiences and accomplishments as examples of why school does not necessarily play a large role in the contributions of one’s success. He claims that if someone wants to truly be successful, all they need is to be motivated enough to reach their goals. “I left high school because it wasn’t helping me. I felt that I was wasting my time. So I developed my own approach to learning.” (2).  He states that all school does is waste time and blocks you from learning what you really need to learn to reach your goals. Bach explained to the class about how he dropped out of high school and studied hard on his own to get himself in the position he held, working as a software test manager at Apple.

Kanye West, in contrast, advocates that higher education is much needed to become successful. Although he is a successful college dropout, he explained that he had to work extremely hard to be lucky enough to make the fortune he made. He encourages people to take advantage of every opportunity they can, and states that a college education is a strong advantage a person can have in the real world.

Although Bach and West have differences in their opinions on schooling, they do share one similar perspective; the current school system is flawed. Bach argues that the school system is flawed because the students are forced to think that the only things that matter are what they learn in school. Kanye West says that the school system is flawed because the current curriculums are not relevant to the majority of the students’ interests. “‘So why not start a curriculum that teaches music production? Come on, get with the times. People are so behind. There’s poetry classes, but why aren’t there rap curriculums? It takes people like myself to stand up and say this is part of our culture, why not use it to educate.'” Both Bach and West encourage people to work hard to pursue their interests.

After reading Wikipedia’s definition of what it means to be a buccaneer I believe James M. Bach’s term coining of the term buccaneer-scholars fits in perfectly with the ideas he is trying to convey. Bach writes “[Education is] not indoctrination, nor worshipping the ancients, nor obedience to authority… [It] is the you that emerges from the learning you do.” He elaborates by saying “Education is important. School is not. I didn’t need school. Neither do you”. What Bach’s theory on education and the buccaneers both believed that it was possible to excel (whether it be monetarily or academically) without having to follow the norms established by governing authorities. However, it is more complicated than what he is making it out to be.

Bach implies to the “at risk” students that it is possible to become successful without the need of traditional learning methods if they just educate themselves with topics which are interesting and fun to them. Similarly, the buccaneers decided to leave their homes along with the possibility of learning a trade or living off the land to instead live life in a more unorthodox manner. The problem with going down these unorthodox paths is that nothing is guaranteed. Sometimes the risks may outweigh the benefits. A simple man may dream of becoming a buccaneer but may die the first day out at sea. A student may choose to not attend school anymore believing all he has to do the self-educate but may end up being overwhelmed due to the lack of guidance.

In theory, the concept of Buccaneer-Scholars may sound interesting and doable on a case-by-case basis but the problem comes in putting it into effect over the whole population. According to the NYS Department of Education, “The object of the compulsory attendance law is to see that children are not left in ignorance, that from some source they receive the instruction that will fit them for their place in society.” Without a traditional education system in place, I fear that many students will not have all the tools necessary to distinguish facts from false statements.

The only benefits I see with Bach’s theory is that it will help give a small percentage of the population the freedom needed to explore beyond norm and if anything learn at a faster rate than that of a traditional curriculum just like Bach.