Philosophy Epistemology Essay

Epistemology is one of the very classic branches of school of thought. It is also shaftn as the companionship theory. The drive inledge theory consists of three questions What is the instauration of association? What is the reliability of hold upledge? & international ampere What is the criteria of acquaintance? Rene Descartes and John Locke re eachy looked into epistemology and both(prenominal) had contrary theories to access code it. John Locke looked at empiricism and Rene Descartes looked at freethinking. John Locke was an incline philosopher and formed his opinion around empiricism. sensationalism is an approach to doing philosophy stressing experience as the in road to all(a) recogniseledge.The pityingitykind organism is a blank intend to him. Locke was a moderate skeptic, who doubted until valid deduction was given to substantiate truth claims of a demonstrative and sensitive nature. The foundations of knowledge functioned in the following trend accordi ng to Locke. The human being takes in the external gentleman through sensation (the five senses) and gives form to the experiential entropy through the processes of reflection. To Locke, visceral knowledge is the most trustworthy because we automatically recognize the agreement or difference of ideas with come out of the closet the intervention of a proof.His metre of knowledge depended on the force and fanaticism with which someone perceives either agreement or disagreement between ideas. So for example, we know that 2+3=5. We also know that 2+3 does non jibe 7. Locke, un bid Descartes, argues against innate ideas. However, Locke relys that we are all born with the ability to dramatize knowledge through the organization of sensate data by the cognitive capacities and capabilities we possess at birth, which are innate to the human. Descartes had a different invite of epistemology. He argued for rationalism.Rationalism is an approach to philosophy that employs pure agree ment to acquire instances of vestigial truth. In Meditations on first off Philosophy, Descartes comes up with three fundamental truths by way of pure reason. The first fundamental truth is I speculate, therefore I exist. This fundamental truth establishes for Descartes the essence of the human being in his philosophy, as the affaire that ideates. He is reflecting on himself as the bearing of deception and reasons that despite being deceived, as long as he understructure think about it, he exists.Having a clear perception of the fundamental truths terminate guarantee they bear be indisputable with absolute certainty and drive outnot ever be false. The three fundamental truths (self, god, & mathematics) are examples of innate knowledge, or truths that all universe are born with given to by God. Descartes says we deal discover these truths through the Meditations, by way of doing philosophy, but we do not pursue these in the same manner we pursue other forms of knowle dge much(prenominal) as science. The dream argument is aimed at the external world.It says that I often get hold of perceptions very much like the ones I nominate while Im dreaming. There are no defined signs to distinguish dream experience from bestir experience, so it is possible that I am dreaming right now and all my perceptions are false. In my opinion, I think that John Lockes position on empiricism is more philosophically labored to me. Just to re-cap, empiricism is an approach to doing philosophy stressing experience as the in road to all knowledge. The human being as a blank slate sincerely take ups sense to me.We automatically know that we can agree or disagree without having to have proof to go along with it. I think that sense experience is constantly the starting point to knowledge. I think in order to direct something in life you have to experience it first. You cant further go out and expect the knowledge to be in your brain for no reason. For example, how would you know what the air blue looks like if you were born unreasoning? You would rent to use your senses to try and guess what the color is. God couldnt just put it in your mind because its something that you just need to see.Also, you can learn from the experiences you go through. If you do something and it ends up being wrong, then you learn from that experience and how you can go about it differently adjoining time. In my opinion, rationalism has some defects that would make it harder to understand philosophically. A rationalist comes to believe that knowledge is a lot like math. So pretty much, it is knowledge that comes to begin with experience. Something that you already know, but have never experienced before. I think that is a bit problematic because how can you know something that you never experienced?Epistemology plays a whacking role in philosophy as does John Locke and Rene Descartes. They both have capital views on epistemology looking at rationalism and em piricism. When thinking about rationalism, we know that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone and that we dont need experience. But when thinking about empiricism, we know that we learn through our experiences as a person. Justifying truth as a philosopher, I would agree more with Lockes view on empiricism. I believe that everything happens for a reason, and that you need experience to learn, and to grow as a person.