A Philosophical Essay

www.kisspng.com

JOHN LOCKE AND RENE DESCARTES  THEORIES OF PERSONALITY

There is a prevailing inquiry on the question concerning the existence of self. Where exactly does it originate? This question has been on the annals of philosophy since time immemorial. Philosophers, as early as Plato, had been thinking about the exact answers and had undertaken numerous inquiries in order to solve the mystery of personhood. So how do  we  really  understand the nature of human beings ? This essay will go down deeply into the analysis  of Rene Descartes and John Locke’s theories on personality.

To help us understand the concepts of this seemingly complicated topic, we will revisit Meditations on First Philosophy (Descartes, 1641) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Locke, 1689). The objective of this paper is not only to compare their views and opinions on the issue but also to make a contrast of their stand or position concerning the topic at hand and prepare intelligent arguments on why John Locke’s philosophical views are far better than that of Rene Descartes philosophy of life.

I would like to believe that the philosophies of the mathematician and the philosopher are  completely different; but I am not  excluding the possibility that there are some identical ideas . In fact, there are areas of great interest where several points of agreement between Locke and Descartes are evident . Locke's essay regarding human understanding isn't a way of blowing Descartes reputation as a mathematician-philosopher. The truth is, John Locke’s account on the theory knowledge has been influenced by his readings of  Descartes philosophy. Even though not as obvious as Descartes, his writings  were influenced partly by the mathematician’s  philosophical ideas and objections and adopted a lot of his nomenclature.

I will currently contemplate on four statements within which the philosopher seems to be following a pattern  on Descartes writings: the assumption of concepts and individuality , the significance  of communication and its rationale, God , the universe and its classification.

Locke's notion of the thought is one example of a term borrowed from the mathematician. For Locke, a concept is that  ``the mind sees in itself, or is  the  quick protest of recognition, thought or comprehension'' (Locke, 48). This looks to be precisely Descartes' definition of idea: ``whatever is instantly perceived by the mind'' (Descartes, 132).The philosopher then goes on to think about the qualities (powers to supply ideas) of external objects. He categorizes between the initial and the trivial qualities; the latter are those that don't seem to be within the objects themselves; however, are perceived or detected, whereas, the previous are those that can't be separated from the article and belong to it at all times like solidity, extension, figure, and quality (Locke, 49). This echoes the excellence created by the mathematician regarding the qualities of wax. The mathematician clearly perceives (the having of) size, shape, and number, likewise as motion, substance, and length; however, qualities like color and sound (Locke's secondary qualities) don't seem to be as clearly perceived (Descartes, 92).

For each mathematician and philosopher, there's one thing regarding man that sets him excluding machines and animals. The mathematician says that although machines could superficially seem to imitate man, they might still be discerned from real men with certainty. Machines, he says, ``could never use words, or place along alternative signs, as we have a tendency to knock off order to declare our thoughts to others'' (Descartes, 44). Nor will animals (beasts), as they need not solely less reason than men, however no reason the least bit (Descartes, 45). Contrast this, and Locke's claim that creatures (beasts) ``have not the college of abstracting, or creating general ideas, since they need no use of words'' (Locke, 64). In each of the mathematician and philosopher’s ideas, I see the antecedents for speculations of the significance of rationale and dialect.

Descartes and the philosopher each discuss free will; above all, they contemplate however  that it can  also be  directed and could stay free, and how it will exactly align  with the existence of a God and the great possibility that we will err in our ways . On the primary of those points, the mathematician thinks that this doesn't limit our freedom; instead he believes that there is a lot that inclines us in one direction and which allows us to use our own free will. On the second purpose, the  mathematician believes that our errors or mistakes isn't coming from God because what we perceived to be true  isn’t exactly what we want  (Descartes, 101). The philosopher picks abreast of these sentiments, agreeing that for us, likewise as God ``to be determined by [one's] own judgment isn't any restraint to liberty'' (Locke, 106). The philosopher extends the mathematician another time by explaining that unhealthy decisions could arise from unhealthy judgments (Locke, 110).

Finally, the philosopher supports his ideas regarding universals and classification of genus and species from the mathematician (Descartes, 179). Genera are utilized to place a distinction among things that  have the same quality or state,  whereas species are used to determine differences (Locke, 183). For this two, classification and division are considerations used for discernment.

I have targeted to date on ways in which the mathematician and the  philosopher have the same thing in common. Though I think I actually have pointed to  a variety of simple similarities, I actually have not sketched something resembling an outline of the philosophies of the mathematician or the philosopher. I think this is mainly because all of their identical ideas are mainly inconsequential when correlated to their exceptions.

For the  mathematician, information depends on absolute certainty. Since perception is unreliable, unquestionable information cannot return from the surface world via the senses (Descartes, 76). The mathematician believes that there are  two ways to discover  knowledge: through expertise and thru deduction. If information cannot return from expertise of the external world, then it should have originated from within. In distinction to perception, the  mathematician believes that deduction ``can ne'er be performed wrong by the theory of intellect that is within the least  rational'', therefore deductive information is (the only) sure information (Descartes, 2).

Such a system needs a basis of intuitively understood principles from that information may be deduced. Descartes trusts that there are a few standards which are quickly referred to, for example, the thought of the presence of the self and that of God's presence, These are standards which are ``revealed to [us] by regular light'' and ``cannot in any capacity be interested in uncertainty'' (Descartes, 89). Descartes reasons that these standards are inherent (Descartes, 97).

Interestingly, Locke does not trust that there is a sure information (Locke, 263). Rather, he puts stock in learning which is likely to a high degree. Since he is not worried with conviction, he require not desert thoughts in light of discernment. Learning can and relies on the faculties and perceptions. Truth be told, Locke says that all thoughts originate from sensation and reflection; all learning is established on experience (Locke, 33).

Locke rejects the presence of any characteristic standards or thoughts on no less than two autonomous grounds. He contends that there are no inherent thoughts on the grounds that, if there were, they would promptly be known not, and they are not (Locke, 8). Locke likewise clarifies that if any thought is characteristic, the thought of God is inherent. Be that as it may, following there is not a generally endless supply of God, the thought of God can't be characteristic (Locke, 25-26). There are no intrinsic thoughts present in the psyche; rather, the brain is a ``white paper, bereft of all characters, with no thoughts'' (Locke, 33). It is through experience, not some perfect normal light, that the psyche can pick up information.

In rundown: Both Descartes and Locke are at first doubters about the likelihood of certain information. Descartes is a mainland (French) pragmatist, trusting that there is sure learning and that human reason (inherent thoughts and reasonings thereupon) is the sole wellspring of such information. Locke, interestingly, is an English empiricist who trusts that information is not sure, but rather that greatly plausible learning can be accumulated for a fact. The thought of (sufficiently certain) information emerging as a matter of fact is incomprehensible to Descartes, pretty much as the presence of inherent thoughts in the psyche is inadmissible to Locke. The rationalities of Descartes and Locke wander hopelessly on the subject of the root of learning.

Both Descartes and Locke attempt to clarify what the self is and how the psyche and body are connected. It is clear what Descartes supposes he (the self) is. In his Second Meditation, he declares that he is a ``thinking thing'' (Descartes, 82), a thing that considers: ``doubts, comprehends, avows, denies, is willing, is unwilling, furthermore envisions and has tactile discernments'' (Descartes, 83). Not just does Descartes consider the self to be a reasoning thing, however he trusts that is his quintessence (Descartes, 114).

Descartes makes an essential refinement between the psyche or intuition substance (res cogitans) and the body or augmented substance (res extensa). He accepts there is a connection between the spirit (brain) and body through which sensations (specifically, agony) are exchanged and that this connection permits one to recognize a body as one's own. ``I am not only present in my body as a mariner is available in a boat, yet that I am firmly joined, and, in a manner of speaking, blended with it, so that I and the body frame a unit'' (Descartes, 116). In any case, he keeps up that ``it is sure that I am truly particular from my physical figure, and can live without it'' (Descartes, 115). For Descartes, then, `self' alludes to the spirit or the brain alone, not the body.

Like Descartes, Locke makes a refinement between the body, ``an expanded strong substance, [and the soul,] ``an insignificant soul ... a substance that considers'' (Locke, 124). Locke thinks the spirit and body are discrete, however related. Additionally like Descartes, he thinks about the self as a thing that considers. Yet, he doesn't concur with Descartes that his ``essence comprises exclusively in the way that [he is] a reasoning thing'' (Descartes, 114). Rather, Locke conceives that the self is both the brain and its body, not the ``thinking or objective being separated from everyone else'' (Locke, 138). Dissimilar to Descartes who considers thought at a given minute, Locke goes ahead to give a record of memory and clarifies character (equality of self) as far as coherence of cognizance (Locke, 139).

The Cartesian and Lockean hypotheses of character, then, can be clarified as takes after: Both recognize the psyche or soul from the body, and both clarify individual personality as far as considering (albeit just Locke considers industrious thought). Descartes says that the self is, and is just, the reasoning soul. Interestingly, Locke says the self is both the spirit and the body. Locke's record of personality appears not to be specifically in strife with Descartes' (similar to the case for their hypotheses of inborn thoughts). It is important that from numerous points of view Locke's record of personality gives off an impression of being a superset of that offered by Descartes, as opposed to a totally isolate hypothesis.