Epistemology is one of the really of import subdivisions of doctrine. It is besides known as the cognition theory. The cognition theory consists of three inquiries ; “What is the beginning of cognition? What is the dependability of cognition? & A ; What is the standards of cognition? ” Rene Descartes and John Locke truly looked into epistemology and both had different theories to near it. John Locke looked at empiricist philosophy and Rene Descartes looked at rationalism. John Locke was an English philosopher and formed his sentiment around empiricist philosophy. Empiricism is an attack to making doctrine emphasizing experience as the in route to all cognition.
The human being is a clean slate to him. Locke was a moderate sceptic. who doubted until valid cogent evidence was given to confirm truth claims of a demonstrative and sensitive nature. The foundations of cognition functioned in the undermentioned mode harmonizing to Locke. The human being takes in the external universe through esthesis ( the five senses ) and gives signifier to the experiential informations through the procedures of contemplation. To Locke. intuitive cognition is the most trusty because we automatically acknowledge the understanding or dissension of thoughts without the intercession of a “proof” .
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
His standard of cognition depended on the force and strength with which person perceives either understanding or dissension between thoughts. So for illustration. we know that 2+3=5. We besides know that 2+3 does non equal 7. Locke. unlike Descartes. argues against unconditioned thoughts. However. Locke believes that we are all born with the ability to get cognition through the organisation of sensate informations by the cognitive capacities and capablenesss we possess at birth. which are unconditioned to the human. Descartes had a different position of epistemology. He argued for rationalism.
Rationalism is an attack to philosophy that employs “pure reason” to get cases of cardinal truth. In Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes comes up with three cardinal truths by manner of pure ground. The first cardinal truth is “I think. hence I exist. ” This cardinal truth establishes for Descartes the “essence” of the human being in his doctrine. as the “thing that thinks. ” He is reflecting on himself as the “object of deception” and grounds that despite being deceived. every bit long as he can believe about it. he exists.
Having a clear perceptual experience of the cardinal truths can vouch they can be trusted with absolute certainty and can non of all time be false. The three cardinal truths ( self. God. & A ; mathematics ) are illustrations of innate cognition. or truths that all worlds are born with given to by God. Descartes says we can detect these truths through the Meditations. by manner of making doctrine. but we do non prosecute these in the same mode we pursue other signifiers of cognition such as scientific discipline. The dream statement is aimed at the external universe.
It says that “I frequently have perceptual experiences really much like the 1s I have while I’m woolgathering. There are no definite marks to separate dream experience from aftermath experience. so it is possible that I am woolgathering right now and all my perceptual experiences are false. ” In my sentiment. I think that John Locke’s place on empiricist philosophy is more philosophically sound to me. Merely to re-cap. empiricist philosophy is an attack to making doctrine emphasizing experience as the in route to all cognition. The human being as a clean slate truly makes sense to me.
We automatically know that we can hold or differ without holding to hold cogent evidence to travel along with it. I think that sense experience is ever the get downing point to knowledge. I think in order to larn something in life you have to see it foremost. You can’t merely travel out and anticipate the cognition to be in your encephalon for no ground. For illustration. how would you cognize what the colour bluish looks like if you were born blind? You would necessitate to utilize your senses to seek and understand what the colour is. God couldn’t merely set it in your head because it’s something that you merely necessitate to see.
Besides. you can larn from the experiences you go through. If you do something and it ends up being incorrect. so you learn from that experience and how you can travel about it otherwise following clip. In my sentiment. rationalism has some defects that would do it harder to understand philosophically. A positivist comes to believe that cognition is a batch like math. So reasonably much. it is knowledge that comes earlier experience. Something that you already know. but have ne’er experienced before. I think that is a bit debatable because how can you cognize something that you ne’er experienced?
Epistemology plays a large function in doctrine as does John Locke and Rene Descartes. They both have great positions on epistemology looking at rationalism and empiricist philosophy. When believing about rationalism. we know that cognition can be acquired through ground entirely and that we don’t need experience. But when believing about empiricist philosophy. we know that we learn through our experiences as a individual. Justifying truth as a philosopher. I would hold more with Locke’s position on empiricist philosophy. I believe that everything happens for a ground. and that you need see to larn. and to turn as a individual.