Descartes Explain Descartes\' Cogito (in

Descartes

Explain Descartes' Cogito (in doing so, explain the two parts individually and then connect them together) Then explain Gassandi's Amublo Ergo Sum, and show why it is not a valid criticism of Descartes' epistemological theory.

Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" reads (first) I think and then therefore (secondly) I know that I am. In other words, I know I exist and I am certain of my own existence because I have the capacity to form thoughts, including the thought of doubt. For me to articulate an 'I think' (however accurately or inaccurately the thinker may be observing the nature of reality, whether the thinker is lucid or whether the thinker is dreaming), there must be an 'I' doing the thinking. Therefore, 'I am' is concrete evidence of my existence. 'I' know I have the ability to think, and to think the thought that 'I' exist; 'I' must have an existence.

Before irrefutably (in his estimation) establishing the veracity his existence, Descartes begins his famous medication by deciding to doubt all things. but, he realizes, the one thing he cannot doubt is there must be someone doing the thinking and the doubting. Thus cannot doubt his own existence. Therefore, I think and therefore I am, for there must be someone 'there' even to begin the process of thought.

Gassendi said Descartes' assertion was not valid because then one could say that human existence was not a dream because 'I' walk, therefore I walk therefore I am. In other words, using thinking as substantiation for existence on the part of Descartes is somewhat arbitrary, and Descartes could have selected any property of humanity, or physical matter, as a justification for existence and a denial of the possibility that one must doubt everything, including one's own existence. But although the mind, as in a dream, can be deceived as to whether the body is walking there still must be an 'I' doing the thinking, dreaming, or hallucinating. Furthermore, one might add, inanimate objects can 'walk,' a doll or a puppet can walk, provided there is someone manipulating the physical motions, but the existence of these objects can be in doubt, as they might be delusions or hallucinations.

Explain why science is of central importance to Locke's theory of knowledge. (Make sure that you explain Primary and Secondary qualities... And their relation to science and knowledge.)

Science, and scientific knowledge gleaned from empirical observation is key to Locke's theory. Locke did not believe all things were or could be subject to doubt. Unlike Descartes, who believed that the truth of existence was manifest in the human mind, and the ability of the human mind to think, Locke believed in the truth of exterior, scientific observation and empirical knowledge, and thus the scientific method had validity as a source of real, certain knowledge.