Question 1: The Importance of John Locke’s Theory of Empiricism in Contrast to the Cartesian “Method of Doubt”
The Rene Descartes “method of doubt” arises from the dualistic view that the mind is separated from the body. The premise of doubt is found in the weakness of human sensory perception to see the truth outside of bodily functions, especially with the use of the human brain. Therefore, the foundation of doubt is based on the inability of the body to reconcile the mental processes or the functions of the mind. This is an important way to understand the definition of “mind” as a function of the soul/spirit through the context of religious beliefs as brought forth by Descartes. In this context, a human being may not be able to view external …show more content…
Locke defines the human brain as being a “blank slate”, which presents the a posteriori concept of knowledge coming after birth, and not before this event. More so, the human mind is fallible and not “perfect” as Descartes implies with the pre-existence of God’s omnipotence. Empirically, the study of the human memory defines the underlying importance of Locke’s theory over Descartes’ in the consciousness of the individual: “That it [the memory] loses the idea quite, and so far it produces perfect ignorance. For since we can know nothing further, than we have an idea of it, when this is gone, we are in perfect ignorance” (Locke 62). In this case, the mind cannot be a perfect reflection of God’s causality, since God is unable to “forget” what he has created. Therefore, the human mind is an imperfect method for resolving doubt, since the consciousness of a human being is based on what they know and how they remember these ideas. Surely, Locke’s empirical method of a posteriori provides a more rationale means of understanding the subjective assumptions made by Descartes about the mind and the conceptualization of ideas through God. Locke provides a practical way to understand the problem of sensory perception and the function of mind through memory as a form of …show more content…
In Russell’s theory of induction he assumes that defines the patterns of nature through scientific observation define a ”norm” through the ideology of inferences. This method of data collection and observation define the validation for labeling certain events through repetition and assumptions about natural law: “they constitute the means of drawing inferences from what is given in sensation; and if what we infer is to be true, it is just as necessary that our principles of inference should be true as it is that our data should be true” (Russell 49). This inductive approach to natural laws and observational patterns defines the assumption of cause and effect, which is determined by the repetition of certain events. However, Hume defies this pattern-based approach to data and knowledge acquisition by acknowledging that new discoveries and new phenomenon are always occurring, which negate the assumed universality of inductive methods: “it must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary” (Hume 21). This critique of the inductive method of reasoning is an important way to understand the assumptions made by Russell about the “universality” or patterns of nature. Hume finds that new phenomenon defeat the purpose of “universal” assumptions made
The Rene Descartes “method of doubt” arises from the dualistic view that the mind is separated from the body. The premise of doubt is found in the weakness of human sensory perception to see the truth outside of bodily functions, especially with the use of the human brain. Therefore, the foundation of doubt is based on the inability of the body to reconcile the mental processes or the functions of the mind. This is an important way to understand the definition of “mind” as a function of the soul/spirit through the context of religious beliefs as brought forth by Descartes. In this context, a human being may not be able to view external …show more content…
Locke defines the human brain as being a “blank slate”, which presents the a posteriori concept of knowledge coming after birth, and not before this event. More so, the human mind is fallible and not “perfect” as Descartes implies with the pre-existence of God’s omnipotence. Empirically, the study of the human memory defines the underlying importance of Locke’s theory over Descartes’ in the consciousness of the individual: “That it [the memory] loses the idea quite, and so far it produces perfect ignorance. For since we can know nothing further, than we have an idea of it, when this is gone, we are in perfect ignorance” (Locke 62). In this case, the mind cannot be a perfect reflection of God’s causality, since God is unable to “forget” what he has created. Therefore, the human mind is an imperfect method for resolving doubt, since the consciousness of a human being is based on what they know and how they remember these ideas. Surely, Locke’s empirical method of a posteriori provides a more rationale means of understanding the subjective assumptions made by Descartes about the mind and the conceptualization of ideas through God. Locke provides a practical way to understand the problem of sensory perception and the function of mind through memory as a form of …show more content…
In Russell’s theory of induction he assumes that defines the patterns of nature through scientific observation define a ”norm” through the ideology of inferences. This method of data collection and observation define the validation for labeling certain events through repetition and assumptions about natural law: “they constitute the means of drawing inferences from what is given in sensation; and if what we infer is to be true, it is just as necessary that our principles of inference should be true as it is that our data should be true” (Russell 49). This inductive approach to natural laws and observational patterns defines the assumption of cause and effect, which is determined by the repetition of certain events. However, Hume defies this pattern-based approach to data and knowledge acquisition by acknowledging that new discoveries and new phenomenon are always occurring, which negate the assumed universality of inductive methods: “it must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary” (Hume 21). This critique of the inductive method of reasoning is an important way to understand the assumptions made by Russell about the “universality” or patterns of nature. Hume finds that new phenomenon defeat the purpose of “universal” assumptions made