The Importance Of John Locke's Method Of Doubt

990 Words 4 Pages
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…
This method of doubt of already flawed because of the subjective a priori assumptions about the presence of God as the causality of the mind, but it does not explain why human beings a flawed sensory perception if they already possess the knowledge of an omnipotent creator. Descartes is subjectively inserting God as a the prime mover in the universe, which defines the resolution of doubt in regards to the human mind, and more importantly, for human existence. These a priori arguments define the perfection of human thought in the mind, but clearly, the human mind is far from a “perfect” method for conceiving ideas and thoughts in the context of mental …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

Related Documents