From a general perspective, society has established a multitude of ideologies and perceived conceptions about the thought processes of man and the ways in which these factors have come to influence our ability to discern thoroughly on different things. One particular ideology or maxim for that matter, being that seeking the truth behind everything an individual finds fundamentally acceptable can be seen as absurd in the eyes of others is clearly outlined in the points-of-view of René Descartes and John Locke. According to Descartes in the novel of Discourse on the Method, he realizes that following the arts and the precepts contained in such disciplines can become arbitrarily uninteresting when there is so little to comprehend based on the historical evidence that already presides.

Accordingly, during his analysis of mathematics, he commentates that though he is especially delighted with the evidence and the reasoning behind it, he still had yet to find the knowledge behind its true usage (Descartes 3). Additionally, he states that, “For it occurred to me that I should find much more truth in the reasonings of each individual with reference to the affairs in which he is personally interested, and the issue of which must presently punish him if he has judged amiss, than in those conducted by a man of letters in his study, regarding speculative matters that are of no practical moment…” (Descartes 3). As such, the idea of constructing one’s mind based on the opinions of others rather than vaguely adhering to the ideas presented in historical texts arises and should be, in his viewpoint, the ultimate path in which an individual should undertake in order to further his or her knowledge, even if it goes beyond the point of bypassing traditions and native customs.

However, in Locke’s point-of-view, the concept of ideas is much more formal and practical in terms of seeking the truth behind what a person truly desires. In his introduction of “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, Locke discusses the fact that some men apparently believe that certain principles are innate to the human mind which is contrary to what he believes to be knowledge that is acquired through observations (Locke 2). Additionally, he believes that using reasoning to determine what is innate from what is acquired gives us a false sense of reality. As such, he augments with the fact that ideas serve as the basic function of the human mind and should be utilized to differentiate between things that are deemed as sensations and things that are reflected upon us to further our ability to comprehend what is true from what is considered false.

In the texts of Rene Descartes and John Locke, both philosophers elaborate on the idea of how individuals gain knowledge. Both philosophers suggest that individuals should experience, witness, or have first-hand accounts in order to “build understanding from scratch.” With that idea in mind, Descartes implied that we should trust personal accounts rather than books, and because of that he, “spent the remainder of my youth in travelling, in visiting courts and armies, in holding intercourse with men of different dispositions and ranks, in collecting varied experience”(Descartes 6).  He believes that it’s more truthful and from his travels he was “accompanied with greater success than it would have been had I never quitted my country or my books” (Descartes 6). In a more extreme perspective, Locke believed that people could only learn from personal experiences such as sensations and self-reflection from actions: “All our ideas are of the one or the other of these [Sensation or Reflection],” meaning that all knowledge gained is built from scratch by ourselves (Locke 6). The individual should be the main, if not only, source of knowledge.

While the two philosophers have very similar ideologies, they differ in the extremity of their arguments. Locke strictly believes that knowledge can only be gained from experience: “From experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself” (Locke 5). Locke did not mention learning from teachers or books, only from oneself. Descartes on the other hand, believed that our most trusted knowledge should come from personal studies rather than books. Descartes does not disapprove of the books, he actually finds them “all excellent books”; however, books should not be the basis of our knowledge (Descartes 3). Descartes even states that the reason he shares his experience “is not to teach the method which each ought to follow,” but to share a story on his approach and success (Descartes 2). While both philosophers have the similar idea of building knowledge, it is their approach that differentiate them. In regards to the idea of “build understanding from scratch,” I believe Locke would argue that everything should come from personal experience and that is the only way to grasp an understanding. On the contrary, Descartes would prefer that most of our knowledge should come from experience, books can be used to start a foundation; but should be replaced or improved with our own personal studies.