Descartes and Locke Descartes Believed

Descartes and Locke

Descartes

Descartes believed in the reliability of innate knowledge over sensory knowledge. In his definition, innate knowledge is any conclusion or understanding drawn from the inborn use of the mind or rationality; in other words, it is the knowledge derived from thinking about something, apart from using any of the senses or the imagination. The senses, like the imagination, are deceptive and cannot be trusted because they are not connected to innate rational thought; and do they even exist if we are not using them? Since it is possible for everything derived from the senses or imagination to be false, as in a dream, they must be assumed to be false in order to discover the definite truth of reality -- or the "sciences." Also, since the body is attached to sensory knowledge, it cannot be trusted either. One can only know for sure what they know in their mind as a result of rational thought, and this knowledge must be constantly discriminated from those false beliefs the human mind so readily imagines to be true, such as colors, textures, or even comforting certainties about God and other men. After meditating on what is certainly true by taking the initial assumption that everything is false, Descartes can only say with certainty that "he is because he thinks he is" and he is "a thing that thinks." Therefore, innate knowledge should always be given priority over sensory knowledge, because innate knowledge is based upon something that is certainly real and constant across time -- the mind. As for everything else, we cannot be sure that a higher power isn't presenting it to us as real when it is truly false, just as we believe what we experience in a dream to be true until we wake. (Descartes)

Locke

Locke, in opposition to Descartes, believed that empirical, or sensory, knowledge is to be trusted over innate knowledge. By empirical knowledge, Locke referred to any ideas derived from external sensory experiences of the body, or internal sensory experiences involving reflection of the mind. He claimed that every idea or piece of knowledge held by a particular man can be traced to either sensation or reflection, therefore there is no proof that innate knowledge is necessary or even exists. Furthermore, Locke said innate knowledge cannot be trusted because it is not available to all men; the mentally disabled and the very young are clearly not "born" with the ability to comprehend rational concepts the way other men are. Finally, Locke argues that empiricism is superior to innate knowledge because even among men of equal age and intelligence, there is tremendous variation among what those men "know." If this knowledge was innate or free of any sensory experience, all men would be expected to share the same basic knowledge base. Locke points out that what we know depends entirely on what we choose to pay attention to and think about; in other words, the experiences we choose to open our senses to, and the experiences we choose to reflect upon. As he said, "…a man may live long and die at last in ignorance of many truths which his mind was capable of knowing." Therefore, truth as Descartes views it -- innate, rational knowing -- does not necessarily exist and is therefore inferior to sensory knowledge. (Locke)