George Berkeley And John Locke Argument Analysis
Amy
Part One: Area of Philosophy
After studying philosophy for the past month I have come to the conclusion that we can’t know anything for sure. I made this comment to my philosopher friends George Berkeley and John Locke. They both looked at me and started arguing with one another on their beliefs. Their beliefs align with epistemology which is the study of knowledge.
Part Two: Argument Analysis
John Locke believed we are born with innate knowledge which is gained from experience. Locke said, “To this I answer in one word, from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself”. Locke was an empiricist who believed human knowledge can be traced to experiences with our senses. Locke believed that we can gain knowledge from experience. Locke also believed that as humans we have the ability to reflect. Locke’s book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding went against the ideas of a rationalist. Locke attacked their innate views with his strong argument. When I asked Locke how we know what was true, he did not have a simple or concise answer.
Berkeley accepted John Locke’s empiricist view but that does not mean he wasn’t a skeptic. …show more content…
The primary characteristics were in physical objects while the secondary characteristics depended on the human mind. Berkeley denied existence of an external world. Berkeley said “to be is to be perceived”. This means the only things that exist are our minds and our ideas. Berkeley’s epistemology was known as “subjective idealism”. Berkeley was also against rationalism and materialism but believed God was evident by perception. Berkeley’s main point was that objects cannot exist without being perceived. For example, when we see a tree and close our eyes we know it still exists even if we cannot see it. This is due to us knowing that people around us will also see the
Part One: Area of Philosophy
After studying philosophy for the past month I have come to the conclusion that we can’t know anything for sure. I made this comment to my philosopher friends George Berkeley and John Locke. They both looked at me and started arguing with one another on their beliefs. Their beliefs align with epistemology which is the study of knowledge.
Part Two: Argument Analysis
John Locke believed we are born with innate knowledge which is gained from experience. Locke said, “To this I answer in one word, from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself”. Locke was an empiricist who believed human knowledge can be traced to experiences with our senses. Locke believed that we can gain knowledge from experience. Locke also believed that as humans we have the ability to reflect. Locke’s book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding went against the ideas of a rationalist. Locke attacked their innate views with his strong argument. When I asked Locke how we know what was true, he did not have a simple or concise answer.
Berkeley accepted John Locke’s empiricist view but that does not mean he wasn’t a skeptic. …show more content…
The primary characteristics were in physical objects while the secondary characteristics depended on the human mind. Berkeley denied existence of an external world. Berkeley said “to be is to be perceived”. This means the only things that exist are our minds and our ideas. Berkeley’s epistemology was known as “subjective idealism”. Berkeley was also against rationalism and materialism but believed God was evident by perception. Berkeley’s main point was that objects cannot exist without being perceived. For example, when we see a tree and close our eyes we know it still exists even if we cannot see it. This is due to us knowing that people around us will also see the