The human nature of understanding is a worldwide concept, that has been adapted over time. These concepts of human understanding were introduced differently by philosophers. John Locke and David Hume, documente in their treatises how the human nature of understanding works. In many arguments of reasoning, Locke states that humans should be on the same level of thinking and knowledge to argue about an idea. David Hume believes that fact is a contradiction, and with contradiction you can’t argue with. Hume’s and Locke’s ideals are both similar and different. The central ideas of these two treatises are determined through their comparing and contrasting and the use of rhetorical devices in the documents. People around the globe have different
…show more content…
The use of rhetorical devices such as anaphora and juxtaposition in John Locke’s Treatise stretches the importance of the central ideas. An example was not to expand upon others idea, unaware of what we are referring to. In addition, we should not reason about an idea without knowing any background experience with it. You must fully understand the situation and research its background in order to reason and argue it. The scientists and their methods offer the ways for us to comprehend the situation and to search up the facts that are buried within. In David Hume’s Treatise, the use of anaphora and alliteration imply to the idea that a fact is a contradiction and you can’t reason with a contradiction. Since it’s a fact, it cannot be questioned. Both Hume and Locke believe that people came up with false facts due to the cause and effect method. Since people experience different kinds of situations, the outcome of the cause will create an effect, which they label as a fact. In addition they both argue that you need background research in order to participate in reasoning an idea or belief. Without any background research your argument will be vague and irrelevant. Scientists should submit rules, or norms, to follow. This will lead to cause less discrepancies and conflicts. The themes of these Treatises of Human Understanding wouldn’t have been determined without the use of the rhetorical devices. These themes are contradictory and imply to all societies around the
The use of rhetorical devices such as anaphora and juxtaposition in John Locke’s Treatise stretches the importance of the central ideas. An example was not to expand upon others idea, unaware of what we are referring to. In addition, we should not reason about an idea without knowing any background experience with it. You must fully understand the situation and research its background in order to reason and argue it. The scientists and their methods offer the ways for us to comprehend the situation and to search up the facts that are buried within. In David Hume’s Treatise, the use of anaphora and alliteration imply to the idea that a fact is a contradiction and you can’t reason with a contradiction. Since it’s a fact, it cannot be questioned. Both Hume and Locke believe that people came up with false facts due to the cause and effect method. Since people experience different kinds of situations, the outcome of the cause will create an effect, which they label as a fact. In addition they both argue that you need background research in order to participate in reasoning an idea or belief. Without any background research your argument will be vague and irrelevant. Scientists should submit rules, or norms, to follow. This will lead to cause less discrepancies and conflicts. The themes of these Treatises of Human Understanding wouldn’t have been determined without the use of the rhetorical devices. These themes are contradictory and imply to all societies around the