Close Reading Post

Truth comes from Experience

Rene Descartes and John Locke are philosophers that have intricate views on life. One similarity between both is that they like to explore the truths about life rather than have things come to them. Both men believe that it is essential to have knowledge about life and used experience in their reasoning. “I entirely abandoned the study of letters, and resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of myself, or of the great book of the world.”(Descartes 5) According to Descartes, to find the truth about life, a person must abandon their regular studies and educate themselves. At a youth age, Descartes began traveling to gain experience. “I spent the remainder of my youth in traveling, and visiting courts and armies, in holding intercourse with men of different dispositions and ranks, in collecting varied experience” (Descartes 6). Descartes used his experience to find the truth of life as well as his growth in knowledge. Locke also believed that people can only learn from their personal experiences such as their sensation and reflections on life. Locke says “All ideas come from sensation or reflection.” (Locke, 1). Locke is basically saying that all ideas that people have come from what they feel, see, and experience. His belief in universal truth derives from personal experience and ideas.

A difference in both men’s philosophy is that Locke deeply believes that knowledge comes only from experience. Whereas, Descartes believes that personal studies is a big part of knowledge. Descartes feels that books are helpful however people should not base their learning method with books but can use it as a foundation. On the other hand, Locke believes that people should start from scratch and build their knowledge based solely on their personal experiences. If both men spoke to each other, they would concur on experience being important however, they would disagree on their approach

Close Reading Post, Descartes, Locke

Opinion vs Ideas

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.

Close Reading Post

Universal Truths vs. Personal Truths

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.

Close Reading Post

Locke vs Descartes

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.

Close Reading Post, Descartes, Locke

Importance of Experience

1 Comment

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.

Free post

Reason vs. Experience

Descartes and Locke both came up with philosophies as to how we can find truth. Descartes leaned towards reason to find truth, while Locke uses evidence and experience.

In Descartes approaches truth with reason. He clarifies that everyone is able to distinguish between truth and fiction. However, people choose the wrong path of thought, which is why he came up with a method. In the first part, he finds himself with “doubts and errors,” in school and ended up leaving “the study of letters and resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of [himself], or of the great book of the world (Descartes, page 3).” He believed that we should find our own knowledge and not solely depend on what we learn from school and instructors. He even comes up with principal rules of the method two being, “never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such (Descartes, page 11),” and “to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution (Descartes, page 11).” Along with this he believes that there should be morals and maxims accepted while following this method. He concludes that finding the truth is extremely useful. Descartes focuses on reason, rather than believing what others have to say about it. He is very open-minded, doesn’t leave anything out and makes sure that everything is taken into consideration. Ultimately, he tries to never believe anything, unless he is able to prove it himself through thoughtful reasoning.

Locke on the other hand, tends to focus on experience and evidence to seek truth. He believes that knowledge is not innate. He states that, “children and idiots have not the least apprehension (Locke, page 2)” proving that knowledge isn’t something you’re born with. Locke questions, “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge?” and answers this stating, “in one word, from experience (Locke, page 5).” He continues this thought saying, “experience furnisheth the understanding with ideas (Locke, page 6).” This is one way many gain knowledge and information. Like in lab, we test our thoughts through experimenting and experiencing it for ourselves to get an answer. The outcome of experience can function as evidence.

I feel like both Descartes and Locke had good points. However, I agree more with Descartes’ views. I like knowing the reason behind things and taking everything into account. Before coming up with a final thought, I like to hear and think about everything around the idea. Some things you can’t experience to find the truth, but everyone has a brain and can figure out what is true or not.

Close Reading Post, Free post, Theory Check-In, Theory Think, Weekly Post Check-In

The concept of the human mind: Descartes vs. Locke

1 Comment

Descartes and Locke are doubtful about knowledge. Descartes went to school and received an education, however questioned what he had learned in school. He believed that school can be helpful even if it doesn’t go far enough. School is only a small part of one’s life. He obtained education from “excellent books.” Nevertheless, he emphasized that “books should not be the basis of our knowledge” (Descartes, 3).  Learning is everywhere and one shouldn’t solely rely on books. He believed that there was so much to learn and he needed to know. He asked questions that schools didn’t have the answers for. This led him to believe that school wasn’t going to help in the future because he wasn’t getting answers. As soon as Descartes finished school, he found himself in many doubts and he was “convinced [he] had [not] advanced no farther” (Descartes, 1). He was still ignorant and naïve and wanted to know what the world was about. Descartes main ideology is that knowledge relies on absolute certainty and that some principles are known by humans.

Locke doesn’t believe that there is certain knowledge. He believes that “all ideas come from sensation and reflection” and that all knowledge is founded on experience (Locke, 2) John Locke questions philosophers like René Descartes. Locke argues that the human mind doesn’t have innate, intuitive ideas but much rather humans are born with reasoning.  Locke believes that humans are not born with basic principles of logic such as a triangle has three sides because these ideas are innate. Locke criticizes the possibility of innate theoretical principles. Locke’s response to the idea of innate ideas is that it is unclear. He questions the whole concept and believes that it is impossible for something to be in the mind without one being aware of it. He concludes that in order for something to be in the mind, to be mental, it has to be conscious. Locke analyzes the problems of memory. People are not conscious of memories however they are in the mind. There is also non-conscious principles and knowledge. In order for innate ideas to get into the mind we had at one time to be conscious and aware of these memories. Locke criticizes the chances of innate principles. He questions the theories and emphasizes that if in fact there are any innate principles, then everyone would agree to them. There are no principles that everyone agrees upon therefore, there are no innate principles. Locke is very meticulous in indicating that there are no principles to which everyone would agree upon. He proves his proof as a logical argument: the nativist (believes in the existence of innate principles) believes that there are certain theoretical principles to which everyone would agree to which Locke disagrees.

The human mind is a perplex concept in which triggers one to interpret it in different light. There are numerous amounts of perspective on the human mind. With so many philosophies and ideologies of the mind, many ideas contradict and even question one’s thoughts. John Locke questions philosophers like René Descartes. Locke argues that the human mind doesn’t have innate, intuitive ideas but much rather humans are born with reasoning.  Locke believes that humans are not born with basic principles of logic such as a triangle has three sides because these ideas are innate. Locke criticizes the possibility of innate theoretical principles.

        I agree with Locke to an extent. I believe that humans are born with some type of knowledge for example, knowing who our mom is. Nevertheless, we aren’t born with common sense instantly when we are born. We gain common sense as we get older and exposed to more things in life. We instantly don’t know that fire is hot. We use our senses to figure that out and by others telling us that fire is hot. Simple knowledge like that isn’t gained when we are just born. It takes time for us to realize the little things. Another example is we don’t believe in God immediately after we are born. We learn about God through our parents and peers. After learning about God, we then choose to believe or not believe in God. Innate ideas don’t just come to the human mind. Not all ideas are directly linked to the mind.

Free post

Theory of Mind

1 Comment

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,  both contrast their own ideas of how one is brought up. Rene Descartes once wrote “It has been my singular good fortune to have very early in life fallen in with certain tracks.” One is born into and grows up in the world he is surrounded by. Early on in life he goes down the path that is best known to him; the one in which he is exposed to during childhood. I, on the other hand, disagree with this statement. I believe that you can be whatever you want to be. You don’t have to follow in the footsteps of your parents. For example, if you grow up in a family of lawyers, that doesn’t mean you have to become one as well. As written by John Locke, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper [tabula rasa], void of all characters without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished?” When one is born, their mind is a clean slate and has not yet been altered. They can turn their life into however they want it to be, regardless of their surroundings.  For example, if someone is born into a family that lives in an area filled with crime, that doesn’t necessarily mean that person will grow up to be a criminal. Just because that’s all they’ve ever known, they may want to better their life and educate themselves to become a person of self-worth and contribute to the world.

Through the lens post

Experience, Education, and Knowledge Come Hand in Hand

In our previous reading, Secrets of Buccaneer Scholar by James Marcus Bach, we identified Bach’s main concern of education being more important than school. He believes that institutional learning settings where we take multiple test is not the way of learning, but rather restricting us. Education is far more than school and can be obtained anywhere we go.

Rene Descartes’s Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and seeking Truth in the Sciences supports Bach’s theory/lens. Rene Descartes attended one of the finest schools in Europe. He was a good student and believed “that by their help a clear and certain knowledge of all that is useful in life might be acquired, I was ardently desirous of instruction” (Descartes). Rene Descartes believed what he learned in school would help in life later on. However after Descartes finished his studies, he was in doubt. He stated, “But as soon as I had finished the entire course of study, at the close of which it is customary to be admitted into the order of the learned, I completely changed my opinion” (Descartes). He had problems he couldn’t solve with the material he learned in school. Descartes change of mind about school supports Bach’s theory because Bach believed that school is not an effective way of educating yourself. After, Descartes completely abandoned his studies and “resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of myself, or of the great book of the world” (Descartes).  He spent his time traveling and “collecting varied experience, in proving myself in the different situations into which fortune threw me, and, above all, in making such reflection on the matter of my experience as to secure my improvement” (Descartes). Descartes was building onto his knowledge even when he was not in school. Descartes’s adventure proves Bach’s idea of being able to educate yourself everywhere you go.

John Locke’s An Essay concerning Human Understandings also supports Bach’s theory of education. In Locke’s essay, he says we have no innate principles in mind. Innate means being in the mind when we were born. John Locke answers the question, “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge?” with a one word answer: experience. “From experience: in that all our knowledge is founded” says Locke. He provides us with an example, “that if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green, than he that from his childhood never tasted an oyster or a pine-apple has of those particular relishes” (Locke). As Bach said, children should not be trapped in school and should go out to the world to educate themselves. With experience comes knowledge and education.

Close Reading Post

“The Greatest Minds”

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.

A Blogs@Baruch site