In this paper I will argue that neither René Descartes’, the Rationalist, nor John Locke’s, the Empiricist, view is completely correct on how we as humans come to acquire knowledge. The readings that I am critiquing are René Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy” and John Locke’s “An essay concerning human understanding.”

Descartes feels that he cannot believe or accept anything that he cannot be absolutely certain is true. So instead of trying to prove everything true, he tries to find everything that could be doubted. He knows that his senses are sometimes deceived and therefore they could always be in a state of deception and everything that he learns through them can be doubted. He says that it is possible that he could be having a vivid dream and nothing around him is real. He also says that he may be a victim of an evil genius that has put in a place where nothing is real or true “…all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment.” (Descartes p.117) The only thing that Descartes is certain of is that he is real he verifies this buy stating, “I think, therefore I am.” (Descartes p.114) He thinks that there are three types of ideas. The first is Innate; an innate idea would be an idea that someone is born with. Descartes say that an example of this would be the idea of God. He says that God is an infinite being and that he, Descartes, is a finite being and that it is impossible for a finite being to come up with the idea of an infinite being alone, so therefore an infinite being, God, must of put this idea in his head. The second type of idea is an Adventitious one. This is an idea that just comes to you and is out of your control; this type of idea may or may not be real since we may be deceived. An example of this would be the idea of blue. If someone were to look at the sky or ocean they would think of blue; the person was not thinking about the sky or ocean but the idea of blue came to them anyways. The third type of idea is Fictitious. This is an idea that is made up by a person and is not real. An example of this would be a unicorn most people have an idea of what a unicorn is, but unicorns are not real. Descartes also believes in dualism that is that the mind and body are two separate entities and are connected through a gland in the brain called the pineal gland, which translates thoughts in to actions.

Locke thinks that we are born as a blank slate, and every idea we have is developed through experience “Let us suppose the mind to be. As we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished?” “To this I answer, in one word, from experience.” (Locke p. 127) He disagrees with Descartes about the idea that humans are born with innate ideas. He feels that humans develop ideas in on of two ways; sensation, the first thought due to a new experience, or refection, which is the remembering of a sensation. ”…I say-namely, external material things, as the objects of sensation, and the operations of our own minds within, as the objects of reflection- are to me the only originals whence all our ideas take their beginnings.” (Locke p.128) Locke also feels that there are simple and complex ideas. A simple idea of a table would be the definition of the table, a flat surface on which things may be sat. A complex idea would be the color or temperature of the table. Thinks that since we are a blank slate thing must make impressions on us before we can begin to make ideas. He says the every object has power to instill its’ qualities in the viewer. “… but powers to produce various sensations in us;” (Locke p. 132)and when some one looks at the ocean the ocean has the power to make them feel blue and wet. He thinks that there are at least two different qualities Primary and Secondary Primary qualities are what make us feel simple ideas, and secondary qualities are the qualities that make us feel complex ideas.

I feel that some of the ideas that Descartes and Locke have are incorrect. Descartes says that the only thing that he can be sure is real is himself. He comes to this conclusion because he can think and if he can think he must be real. I think that he is sure he is real than he must certainly believe that his parents are real and if his parents are real then his grandparents, brothers or sisters must be real also. It would therefore be very easy to determine what males were real if you were a woman. If a woman was impregnated then she could be sure that the child and the father were real and therefore his relatives were also real. Descartes’ thoughts about the evil genius controlling every thing around him must then be untrue because Descartes is real and therefore many of his relatives a real. Descartes thoughts about him being in a very vivid dream a feel are also not plausible. I have had dreams that seemed very real until I awoke, but I have never had a dream where I have felt physical pain nor have I had dream where I have been of able to taste or smell anything. “I see plainly that there are any sure signs by means which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep.” (Descartes p.115) So I feel that if Descartes thinks that he is having a dream he should pinch himself, or try to eat or smell something. Descartes thinks that his senses can be tricked or deceived which I will grant but I find that the mind can be tricked too. I think that the senses are closely linked to the mind and so if they are being tricked the mind is to. I will now give an example of how the brain could be tricked if someone did not think this question through carefully. There is a boat and over the side is a rope ladder with twenty-two rungs, which are exactly one foot apart four of the rungs are already underwater if the water rises eight inches every hour how long will it take it take for the water to reach the eleventh rung on the ladder. Most people, with a little mathematical deduction, would quickly derive an answer of ten and a half hours which is wrong, not because their calculations were wrong but because their minds were tricked. Their minds were so worried about keeping track of numbers that it forgot to take into account that this rope ladder was off a boat, which floats and therefore the water would never reach a rung higher than it is already. Therefore, I find that the mind is no better than the senses at not being tricked and Descartes said himself “once the foundations of a building are undermined, anything built on them will collapses of its own accord;” (Descartes p.114) So I conclude that Descartes’ thoughts about we can only trust our minds and we can not be assured that anything around us is real is not a rational opinion. I would also like to state that I think that Descartes is trying so hard to think rationally that he is ultimately irrational.

Locke says that we are born as a blank slate and that we have nothing innate about us. He thinks that we have to have experiences before we can develop out own ideas. He feels then that since we are born as blank slates with no ability to learn that and thing that we experience is because what we see or hear or smell or taste is because the objects that we are experience have the power within them to make us feel that way. If he feels that every object has this power than he must grant that newborn babies have the power to make a person feel a sense of adoration or frailness and a newborn baby has not had an experience to give them this power. Consequently, they must be born with the power to make people feel certain ways and so how Locke’s idea that there is nothing innate about people must be false if the rest of his views might be true.

Like Descartes, I think that we are born with something innate, unlike Descartes I do not believe that it is knowledge or ideas, but rather the ability to learn and interpret experiences. I think that we are born with an individual soul that accounts for are personalities and how we learn. I disagree that we are born with a set personality but one is developed through the way that our soul interprets our experiences in life. I feel that I can prove that everyone is born with a different soul, which is the ability to learn and interpret through experiences. Imagine that there is a set of identical twins that are raised by the same parents, have very similar childhood experiences, and are nearly equal in intellect with the similar interests. Even though they are very similar in nature, I feel that it is safe to say that it is possible that they may have different personalities; and if asked questions on an opinion that they would not give the same answers verbatim. I almost agree with Locke’s view, that we learn only through experience and that we are born as a blank slate. But I feel that we are born with no knowledge except the knowledge on how to obtain more knowledge and an animal instinct on how to stay alive. I also agree with Descartes’ idea that the mind and body are not one and the same. The body is controlled by the mind. Additionally, I believe that the mind goes on after the body dies.

If someone has the opinion that there is no God they may ask how one can have a soul if there is no God. I would tell them that that is something that they must decide for themselves how they would have a soul is completely dependent on how the believe they came to be. If they believe in evolution then I would tell them that a soul is a product of evolution. If they believe that people have just always been here and have no theory on how people got here I would tell them that the soul came with the people. If a person believed that the body is the same as the mind I would ask them if that is true, then how would a paraplegic be able to speak of running or walking. Since the mind and body are the same it would be logical that if the body is damaged and cannot use its legs then the mind must be damaged and should no nothing about legs either.