DESCARTES VS. LOCKE:
Locke’s view is the opposite of Descartes’ view.
- Descartes is a rationalist (who thinks all knowledge comes from reason, conception, and thinking) and idealist (who thinks all knowledge comes from ideas)
- John Locke is an empiricist (who believes all knowledge comes from sensory experience like touch, sight, taste, smell) and a materialist (who believes there is some material or substance outside of us that all of these sensory things reside in.)
What experiences have you had that make your thoughts or your senses seem the more real?
If Locke's sensory knowledge is right, does that mean in fact that objects can "make us" think of certain things? When I look at a table, do I unavoidably think, Oh, it's flat on top, it's brown, it's got four legs; without having any choice in the matter? Does that make it seem like objects have too much control of our minds?
(Keep in mind one of Locke's major distinctions, that "primary" qualities must be "in the object" itself, because they are necessary for the object to be what it is; but that "secondary" qualities are only in us, our mind, because of our preferences. An example of this would be a table that is brown in color. The table's flatness is primary quality, because it must be flat to be a table, but the table's color brown is secondary, because it could be any color and we perceive color in certain ways because of our senses... even if we are color blind, the table is still a table because of its shape.)
Certainly, objects hold, at the least, a significant degree of influence on our thought processes by way of our sensory perception of the objects and the mental associations we have with certain sensory perceptions. To illustrate this, consider an example of one who was not human, but a relative of our species: Moja the chimpanzee; I bring this up because not only was Moja one of the first chimpanzees to develop rudimentary language skills in American Sign Language, but Moja utilized, at least in one instance, a combination of known concepts and words to identify an unknown object, a thermos. Moja referred to the thermos as “METAL CUP DRINK.” For me, considering the close relation of chimpanzees to our own species, I would say that this example reinforces the idea that objects, by their very nature and our perception of them, invariably “make us” think of certain things. Moja saw a thermos; the thermos was shaped like a cup, reflected light much like metal, and was utilized by the human attendee for drinking; therefore, it “made” Moja think of a cup, and it “made” Moja refer to it as a metal-cup-drink. If humans are much the same, then logically, seeing objects we have not previously identified, we are still made to think of the closest possible analogues by way of what we perceive about the object in question.
Going from this, we can see that sensory experience, and experience in general, and therefore empirical observation of a material world, significantly influence our minds, and from that knowledge is derived. This supports the Lockean philosophy of how knowledge is acquired, opposite of Descartes’ rationalist, idealist philosophy. Nonetheless, we would be remiss to not consider the merit of Descartes’ views, emphasizing the primacy of reasoning, thinking, and conception for knowledge. For the example of Moja, the conclusion of metal-cup-drink was arrived at after considering the properties of the object in question and reasoning, considering what those properties meant and then conceiving of the best way to name it.
For myself, I have had some experiences that would be good to think about in relation to these two opposing views. In one instance, I electrocuted myself while working on a power supply. I had seen danger signs, I was well aware of the power of electricity and the potential threat it could pose to human health if handled improperly, yet this happened anyways. That was observation of the outside world, yet even with that knowledge, I still electrocuted myself. That very experience made my sense of hearing, vision, and most especially touch seem much more real, as I actually heard, saw, and felt the sudden electrical event as that current passed unto me. Much of what I learned from this I would credit to a more Lockean view of empirical observation, deeming my experience of sensory input necessary to generating new knowledge. For me, at least, Locke’s view falls more in line with how I think about the acquisition of knowledge.