John Locke

Jessica, a young girl that has been unconscious since the day she was born, was given a cure so she could finally gain consciousness. After 10 years, Jessica would finally be aware of her surroundings for the first time. In this given scenario, we question what John Locke would say about Jessica after she is conscious. In addition, we will compare and contrast Locke’s theory of knowledge from Rene Descartes’ with respect to Jessica’s knowledge. If Jessica was to become suddenly conscious and became aware of her surroundings for the first time, John Locke would interpret this experience as Jessica understanding and grasping the knowledge of what surrounds her. Locke’s principal ideally compares the mind of a newborn baby to a blank piece …show more content…
However, Descartes’ main principal relies on the fact that knowledge is dependent on absolute confidence. According to "Descartes' Epistemology,” Descartes states, “I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason.” He believes if one can create doubt regarding their sensory experiences and go through a stage of reasoning to determine what is real, this person can see through the illusions and understand what is true. His hypothesis can be seen as a way to reinforce his beliefs, as depicting the sensory experience we have picked up to be false. He tries and guides everyone through his methods to really gain a sense of knowledge and reasoning. Their main differences rely on what is made of the sensory experiences that are perceived by the mind. Locke believes that experiences that are perceived by the brain is true knowledge, while Descartes takes it a step further and doubts what our sensory structures pick up to create something that is true with absolute