Posted at 10.13.2018
Descartes had his fair talk about of opposing philosophers, but one of is own main critiques is at the person of John Locke. I really do not totally trust his proposition that only your brain can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are always under the strike of the devil that deceives us. And by that be aware I will use Locke to oppose the primary proposition of Descartes relating to doubt or the first yoga. Descartes first deep breathing focused on uncertainty and how knowledge is innate in us. In Descartes' first yoga; there is this thought that since our senses can be viewed as as doubtful or deceiving, which means knowledge that arrived to us thorough the senses are doubtful and the data that we now have is from your brain. Descartes pointed out that we are in a dreaming state, that people are but in circumstances where in the senses that people have deceives us. Locke therefore proposed that we our sense aren't deceiving us, we aren't in a desire condition; because for him knowledge can only just be performed through the senses rather than by some innate ideas that is from our head. This concept of ideas that comes from our minds content some issues that were determined by Locke; is that if one has this innate knowledge locked up in his mind's eye, she or he therefore must have the consciousness that knowledge is available, but by the mere fact a child will not know that his parents are his / her parents demonstrates that knowledge cannot be innate or can be only within the mind.
Locke then recommended that we now have two types of experiences; is what he called as exterior experience. External experience or is what he described as the knowledge which we can attain knowledge through the use of our five senses; the color, the smell, the movement and etc. associated with an object can be related to this type of experience. Quite simply, sense experience is approximately the analysis of the physical characteristics of an thing that is before you. The other kind of experience is exactly what he message or calls as the inner experience or called as representation ; this experience makes us understand or interpret the several characteristics that the exterior experience have produced; meaning the shape or taste of your an thing is interpreted by this second experience. Locke here proposed that there surely is this cycle that a certain subject or a thought must go before it can be considered as a piece of information, that i truly believe will be the most correct process of understanding a certain object. Unlike what Descartes has been promulgating, Locke has made a logical process of how we could attain knowledge. Descartes has suggested that since our senses deceive us therefore anything that passes through our senses is considered to be doubtful or untrue.
Now why don't we go to Descartes' God discussion. Descartes started out by stating that the data of God is again innate in us. Again we see the situation within the declaration of Descartes. Experience will train us the moral key points and the backdrop had a need to understand and also have the data about God. Then how would God be innate in us if experience would be the basis for us to comprehend and have a concept about God. Our mind during our infancy and early years is what John Locke regarded as a clean slate, a tabula rasa, wherein knowledge is put into it through our sense experience rather than by mere innate ideas. Moreover if we'd this innate notion of God, then exactly why is it that we all have different interpretations of him? Exactly why is it that some people even come to the extent of not believing him or even not considering him as living? God for Descartes appeared to be the promulgator of all that is true. And then for him sense experience is impossible because we can be deceived. So who does the deceiving? Descartes then remarked that there is this being that is accountable for deceiving us through our senses. He called this deceiver as the devil the cause of all the falsity our senses produce. The thought that the senses can be deceived by the devil gives us the notion that all outside objects and may as well our senses can be controlled by the devil. And by saying this Descartes demonstrates our sense cannot be trusted but rather, our head is the most trustworthy attribute. God for me personally is not an innate object or idea. As same as what Locke has said, our ideas of God varies and therefore we cannot say that there is this universal understanding of God that is innate in all of us.
Now that was done we will now go to his second meditation where in we can find his most well-known saying "Cogito ergo total" which translates to "I think, therefore I am". Using Locke's empiricist look I will now reflect on this matter of the cogito. Since John Locke adheres to the theory that the senses are the way to obtain knowledge and nothing at all else, maybe it's said that there would no need for an idea of the cogito. By the mere fact that people have a body and we can experience it is enough reason to state that we are present. Sense experience, as said before, is the basis for knowledge also it can prove that we exist. We can feel other bodies and other objects it is therefore a proof that we can be found and we are not being deceived by any supernatural being. Our sense experience will do proof that we are alive, we can be found beyond reasonable hesitation. Doubting the lifetime of our body is like declaring that people do not feel or see or notice anything. We can see, we can feel, we can experience pain and pleasure by the use of our anatomies; therefore doubting it could require us to think that we do not feel anything, we do not have the pain if our hands is put above fireplace. For me personally therefore I completely disagree with his second yoga.
Next we go shall go to his interpretation of the body and your brain and how the mind is more known to us than the body. Locke argued that your body can't be unhinged from the concept of the mind; for this is your body which sucks in outside stimuli to drive the mind to consider; the body therefore is our receptors for knowledge and since it is our first degree of experience it can be considered as more known to us that your brain. Locke continuing by expressing that even as we are not always in a pondering status therefore we are not that acquainted with our mind. Our body is a major strainer where in every of the exterior stimuli can be experienced. Our body is the receptacle of most things which we can feel or experience. Therefore the body is becomes our first connection with the outside world and by the actual fact that we can contemplate it as a first, then we could say that people know more about the body than our mind. For example we visit a chubby woman operating towards a fast food restaurant, isn't our first thought would be her size, her being chubby rather than what she believes? We first think about her appearance thus we're able to know first her appearance, but we can not deduce what she is considering; what her head contains once we see her walking to a restaurant.
Now we go to her third yoga which is approximately the lifestyle of God. For me personally his justification of the living of God is not that strong and I do not agree with it. If for example I have an idea of your dragon, then that dragon must be existing in reality; but it does not. So therefore I will use the doctrines of St. Thomas upon this. God's presence can be proven by his effects, which are all the things that we can easily see here. The best example would be the world. It might be quite impossible for this sphere of land and water just came out unwilled. Therefore there has to be this all powerful being that created the world and its majesty. The effects of God therefore will be a stronger justification somewhat than saying that if we have an idea of any God or the God therefore we can say that he is accessible.
Now we can go to the next meditation that involves the lifetime of material things. Descartes in this part of his meditations that people can have knowledge, the correct knowledge, of materials things. Though he did say that this knowledge then should never pass through our senses but by again it should directly be processed in our brain. Through Locke, I could say that proposition cannot be trusted or right. How would external objects be prepared through our imagination directly without the use in our senses? This proposition seems to be, for me personally, an impossible thing to be done. Every material subject has several physical characteristics that can only just be believed by our senses if we do not use these senses or if we do not experience these things then it might be impossible for all of us to comprehend them or for our mind to interpret them.
Lastly we shall now go to his last yoga which is the argument of mind and body. I agree with this part, that your body and the mind are two completely different entities; for the mind function differently from your body. The mind functions upon the by the use of outdoors stimuli that is received by our senses of the body. Therefore their responsibilities are different from one another; the mind is always to control the bodily processes and interpret what the exterior stimuli is expressing and your body is the main one acted after by the mind, but is the first to acquire stimuli from the exterior source.
From my viewpoint, several meditations which were done by Descartes were not logical. His main contention of your brain being the first to receive experience or knowledge is very difficult. It suggests that the senses can't be trusted, that all that the senses have recognized and the data that has come from them are doubtful even if it's not. As I have said I really do not agree with all the ideas that were directed at us by Descartes and I hoped I explained it properly through the cases and by the use of the doctrine of John Locke.