Goldwin Vs Aristotle

As knowledge come through the mind, it was clear that human is full with ideas as they experience the universe with through sight. He explains that knowledge is to connect, whether to disagree or to agree, either way it is with the idea of human form. This doesn’t allow our knowledge to extent beyond extension of human ideas. He argues that God gave us our accommodation for a reason to support us in the inquest for truth. By God’s creation, we understand that we must maintain ourselves. For he to help us, God created in us a natural dislike to pain and a longing for happiness. Therefore, each person has a responsibility to support other people as well as himself. Acknowledging the accountability to support the rights of all human being by …show more content…
In that case, the right to decide the lawfulness of citizens’ complaints against authority starts with the people, and when the government denies, the people’s intensity, “the appeal lies nowhere but to Heaven…and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit, to make use of that appeal.” (Robert Goldwin). This explains that he argues against native knowledge maintaining that human beings cannot have ideas in their own minds of which they were not knowledgeable. That human being is differing greatly in their moral ideas, moral knowledge must not be native. He is also opposing that God is not always accepting the idea that his existence cannot, therefore, be native of human knowledge. Locke talks the nature of knowledge itself, wanting to know what knowledge is and in what extent we can hope to achieve it. For Locke, knowledge is what the mind can support through the lack of connection. He disagrees that we can never develop a theory of knowledge in normal philosophy. Although he doesn’t seem to think we will ever be able to know more about the true nature of things, Locke is hopeful that we