John Locke(The Empiricist) Vs Rene Descartes(The Rationalist)

In this Essay paper I will compare and contrast John Locke (the empiricism) and Rene Descartes
(the rationalist.)

Both John Locke and Rene Descartes were great philosophers who made a great contribution to
the field of philosophy. They both studied epistemology and disagreed with Aristotle. Rene
Descartes was born into respected family. While in the University, Rene Descartes studied

Greek, Latin, dance, fencing, math, Science, philosophy and music. Descartes inherited great

wealth from both mother and father; therefore he had no need to work and spent most of this
life alone. In 1618, Descartes enlisted in the Army of Prince of Nassasu and later joined the
army of the Duke of Bavaria. It is unclear if he ever went to battle. On November 10, 1619,
Descartes had ad revelation that transformed him and changed the direction of wester

philosophy. He believed that he had been divinely encouraged to establish a universal method
of reasoning, based on mathematical principles, which, if followed carefully enough, would

guarantee the absolutely certain truth of its results. Descartes is known as the father of modern
philosophy for his contributions to philosophy. . (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 254)

Despite both of then been interested in epistemology, they had very different philosophical

view as to the theory of knowledge. Rene Descartes was a rationalist. Rationalists believe that
abstract reasoning can produce undeniable truths about nature, existence and the whole of

reality. Descartes stated that many of these truths can be discovered without observation or
event experience. Descartes called these a priori (innate ideas). Descartes established the

coherence theory of truth, it is a test in which new or unclear ideas are evaluated in terms of

rational or logical consistency and in relation to already established truths. Rene Descartes

stated that we are born with innate ideas, and that we build from those ideas. He described it

as building blocks and that we build upon those already established truths. Rationalists believe
that reason is the primary source of knowledge, superior to sense evidence. Rationalists argue

that only reason can distinguish reality from illusion and give meaning to experience. Descartes
was somewhat of a skeptic. There are degrees of skepticism, progressing from total doubt
about everything to temporary or particular doubt invoked just for the process analysis.
Descartes used temporary doubt to challenge everything. Descartes used skepticism to

establish complete certainty. Descartes states that we should not relay on anyone and that we
need to doubt all knowledge and beliefs that we have gained through our senses. For example
we may think we are looking at an airplane and later discover that it was actually a bird. He

states that we might think it is real or it could be a dream. Descartes discovered the methodic

doubt which is a Cartesian strategy of deliberately doubting everything it is possible to doubt in

the least degree to that what remains will be known with absolute certainty. He rejected

anything he did not know clearly and distinctly. If we recognize something clearly and distinctly
then it is true (pg. 261). Descartes points out that it would be impossible to examine every

belief we currently hold. Instead we must examine the origins and foundations of basic kinds of

beliefs. If there is any possibility about the belief been wrong we must reject them and any idea
that depends on them (Pg. 263. The only thing we can be certain of is the Cojito, (I think
therefore I am) No rational person would doubt his or her own existence as a conscious

thinking entity-while being aware of thinking about something. We are born with an innate of

idea of god, that an existing thing is more perfect than a nonexistent thing therefore god must

exist and god would not let the evil genius deceive us. If we are aware of the cojito and god,

then we are certain of an external world. Descartes tells us that if are not certain that god exist,
then we are stuck in the Cojito. . (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 266)

Unlike Rene Descartes, John Locke was born in Wrington to puritan parents of modest means.
His father was a lawyer. John Locke attended Oxford College, were he studied logic and

metaphysics and later became a physician. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/) John

Locke was also a very influential figure in politics and us responsible for writing several treaties.

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/) John Locke was a skeptic and an empiricist. Skeptic is

a person who demands clear, observable, undoubtable evidence-based on experience-before
accepting any knowledge claim as true. Empiricist belief that reason is unable to provide

knowledge reality; such knowledge is derived from experience and that all knowledge can be
traced back to sense data (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 283).

Like Descartes, John Locke studied epistemology, but he disagreed with Descartes on the
theory of knowledge and how we come to truth. Locke stated that as a physician, he was

trained to rely on his own powers to perceptions, and that as a physician you cannot wait until
you reach mathematical certainty about the correct treatment before helping a patient. One
has to act based on what one perceives. One must turn to the facts and from experience.

(Archetypes of Wisdom, Pg. 284)Descartes relied on the coherence theory of truth, where new
or unclear ideas are evaluated based on already established truth. Rationalist stated the reason-

not empirical observation- is the ultimate test of truth. (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 256) Locke relied

on the correspondence theory of truth which states Locke relied that and idea or belief is true if

whatever it refers to actually exist. The correspondence theory of truth is in direct contrast with
the coherence theory of truth. According to John Locke, all ideas originate from sense data. For
example, one who is born blind will never have an idea of color, and can only perceive shape
through sensation.

Descartes states that we are born with innate ideas that are not derived from sense data and
experiences. Locke argued that without appealing to the ultimate test or experience, reason

has no ground or standard, for distinguishing truth from fantasy. Locke compared the mind as
an empty pantry that is filled as experience life. Locke better compared the mind at birth a
clean slate, (a tabula rosa). . (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 286)

Both Rene Descartes believed that existence can be divided into two completely distinct,

independent, unique substance or kinds of things. This is called dualism. This distinction can be

between mind and body, natural and supernatural, evil and good. Rene Descartes referred to it
as Cartesian dualism refers to Descartes conviction that human beings are a mysterious union
of mind (soul) and body of incorporeal substance and corporeal substance, with each realm
operating according to separate sets of laws. The mind follows the path of reason, but

otherwise its free. The body follows the laws of physics and falls under the rule of cause and
effect: The human body is no freer than any other material thing. The soul is somehow

dispersed to all parts of the body, but thinking enters the brain through the pineal gland.

(Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 274) According to Cartesian Dualism, the mind (soul) may continue
to exist after the body is bead. Descartes state that human beings are essentially spiritual

beings who happened to inhabit the body. . (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 27) Locke affirms the

existence of two substances: matter and mind and viewed then as different kinds of substance.
John Locke did agree with Rene Descartes that something substantial underlies and holds

together the sensible qualities of experience (color, taste, size, shape, location, and such). He
called this substantial something (substance), a complex idea according to John Locke. Locke
states that we have only one idea of substance (in general). He claims that upon analysis, we
have no clear, distinct idea of substance itself, but only a notion of such qualities which are
capable to producing simple ideas in us. According to John Locke our everyday experiences
confirm the existence of substance. (Archetypes of Wisdom pg. 287) Locke holds a position

known as epistemological dualism, the view that knowing contains two distinct aspects: the
knower and the known. Lockes position presents us with a fundamental problem: If all

knowledge comes in the form of my own ideas based on the sense data, how can I verity the
existence of anything external to the sensations that constitute sense data. (Archetypes of
Wisdom pg.288)

I kind of agree with John Lockes correspondence theory of truth. I believe our mind is a blank

slate when we are born. Who and what we are depends on our experience, beliefs and culture.
If we all have innate ideas, we would all have the same beliefs, interest and we would all belief

in the same God, so how do people become atheist? If I believe in God, it is because my parents
talked to me about God, otherwise I would have no knowledge of the existence of God. I do
agree with Descartes on the concept of the cojito. I think that if I exist then there must be

something or someone greater than I. If I exist then there must be someone out there who
created me, and that someone must be God.