Rene Descartes and John Locke both tried to find answers to the same questions but in different ways. They both was trying to get an understanding on what knowledge really was, do the mind and body have a role in knowledge, and is there any confidence in knowledge. Descartes believed that there were some kind of confidence in knowledge and Locke on the other hand didn’t believe that it was some confidence when it came down to knowledge. Meaning Descartes wanted proof before he claimed knowledge and Locke does not think proof is required. Whatever was supported by evidence was knowledge to Locke. Both of these philosophers prove how they viewed it differently.
In Meditations, Descartes talks about the things of which people may doubt. He believed in so many falsehoods growing up and built some knowledge from those falsehoods. He later realized that he cannot doubt his own reality. Instead of doubting his opinions, he could build a foundation for those opinions, so they could be founded. Descartes made arguments about dreaming, sense, mathematics and the evil demon. During his argument about dreaming, he mentioned that while he is dreaming he is sensing real things. It feels like he is awake but it’s a dream that is convincing him that it is real. The term evil demon only exists when he feels like something is fooling his senses. Descartes feel like we might be dreaming or might be deceive when it comes down to our senses. It done been times he had to learn from or through his senses but at the same time his senses had lied to him. Using his own sense is what made him doubt human sense. He knew for sure that mathematics existed. He just knew that he couldn’t really argue with that one (Descartes, 1-12).
From some ideas that come about from thinking “consciousness” couldn’t get a certain proof of the existence objects. Descartes defines thought as relating to the term consciousness. Consciousness can be defined as understanding things that exists. The role of consciousness makes specific things available to your mind. He strongly believed that the mind was the head of our consciousness. Our identity and sense of self comes from it. He noticed that thought is connected with consciousness of the mind and body. The mind and body have some type of interaction. We are the only people have access to our mind. Nobody else knows how we think because it’s our mind. A person mind is not a something that is physical like a human’s body. The mind is a mental thing. It is a person thought on how they respond to things and what they are thinking about. There are three aspects that is important in the Meditations: Transparency of the mental, Reflection, Intentionality. When dealing with transparency of the mental you are aware of your thoughts. Secondly, reflection is any thoughts that involves knowledge of yourself. Lastly, intentionality is thought that come to yourself that represent some. Rene Descartes was trying to see if specific things like our self even exist. He believes that your physical body comes after your personal identity. Personal identity is thinking for yourself. A person body plays a role in self-identity. At some point he also doubted nature but realized it taught him some things. He did believe that it was an existence of self and that God existence even though he doubted him at one point (Descartes, 1-24).
John Locke had the mindset that all knowledge is founded based on experience. He thinks so highly of knowledge. Locke makes an argument about humans not having a mind/idea when it is basically born but they are born with reasoning. He feels like they are not born with basic principles of logic because of that he criticized it. Locke thinks it’s impossible for a person to have some on their mind without them being aware of it. He mentioned that in order for something to be mental it has to be conscious. John tries to figure out problem with the memory. People are not aware with memories like they are with the mind. A person could base identity off how they view self. Memories could help identify self as well. Self-identity could be a source to lead up to memory. Locke had three sorts of substances: God, Finite intelligence, and bodies. When it comes down to God there can be no doubt of his identity. Long as Finite appears the time and place will always determine the identity. Lastly, it will be the same for every particle of matter (Locke, 1-2).
Locke personally feels like two things of the same thing cannot be in the same place at the same time. When it talks about the identity of man he compares it to an animal. He does not think man are animals they are just something he can compare it to. Animals are defined as a living organized body. Locke refers “man” to a living body of a certain shape. He knew it was a lot of definition to man and really wasn’t just one definition to it. Therefore, he only could create an argument for his definition (plato.stanford.edu). You have to know what a person stands for when dealing with personal identity. Locke defined it as a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and consider itself as itself. He feels like consciousness makes personal identity but not sure if it’s the same identical substance. Personal identity in change of substances have something to do with being able to feel when they are touched, if they are being affected, and is the conscious good or harmful happens to them. It is actually to be known that consciousness brings together actions into the same person. Self does not depend on substance but on consciousness (Locke, 2-13).
Rene Descartes and John Locke both explained and tried to get people to understand what knowledge really was, do the mind and body have a role in knowledge, and is there any confidence in knowledge. They tried to help people understand what the self is and how the mind and body somewhat linked to each other. All philosophers not gone always look at things the same or even think the same. These two having to have two different views on knowledge. Descartes thinks that we can’t really trust the senses we have and how he needs some type of proof before he claims knowledge. Locke feels like experience comes from knowledge and feel like a human don’t have an idea when they are basically born. He just feels like they are not necessarily born with the basic principles. John felt like in order for the things to appear in our minds we have to be aware of the memories. Rene Descartes and John Locke both prove their points in different ways that help people understand their point of view.
In conclusion, both had valuable points and somewhat got their points across. I would choose both if I could, but I will have to prefer John Locke view. When we are born we are not really born with common sense. We are born with some type of knowledge. The knowledge could be big or small regardless we are born with some. As a person grow and mature that is when they gain something called common sense. Humans learn through experience once they get older. For example, once you make a mistake you should learn from it. It is up to the person if they learn from it or not or continue to make the same mistake in life and not learn from the things they done been through. In life comes experiences, you live and you learn from every single one.