Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.
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 in everyone (universal ideas are the principals that all humans agree on). He uses the case of children to prove that not all ideas are universal and innate by stating that if they were then everybody would have them when they were born, and it is......
Join Now or Login to view the rest of this paper.
Approximate Word Count: 918
Approximate Pages: 4 (260 words per double-spaced page) |