You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Locke's point on view about empiristics
Pages 2 (502 words)
The empiricist claim of Locke proposes that knowledge only comes from experience and feeling while the rationalists asserts that reason is already an innate attribute and is already previously present in Descartes Cartesian proof.
Explain why Berkeley maintains that if empiricists take these ideas seriously, Locke's account actually leads to radical doubts about the existence of the material world. What solution to this problem does Berkeley think that empiricists should accept? Berkeley's solution, however, is widely seen to be highly problematic. Which of these two problems---the (alleged) problems facing Locke or Berkeley's solution to these problems---seems to be the most damaging or difficult problem facing empiricism? Why? Critically defend your position. The empiricist claim of Locke proposes that knowledge only comes from experience and feeling while the rationalists asserts that reason is already an innate attribute and is already previously present in Descartes Cartesian proof. Locke posits that the human consciousness evolves and therefore starts as an “empty mind” or a tabula rasa. It continuously evolves with experience, learning and sensation which are the sources of our ideas. The rationalists like Rene Descartes however, presupposes that reason is already inherent in man. It is already there even before he or she attempts to evolve or make a conscious effort to even think. For Descartes, the mere exercise of thinking is already a validation that one exists. Even the process of doubting one’s existence, in Descartes perspective, is already a proof that one exists due to the sheer exercise of thinking. ...
Not exactly what you need?