Absolutism

Absolutism in our American society is definetely viewed as evil. Although we have been conditioned to think in this manner, absolutism can have many advantages compared to a democracy. Our society is conditioned to think of naturalism as evil for a few reasons, war is one of them. Throughout the history of time the US has been at war with absolutist countries. Many of these countries are in a time of great despair before absolutist power takes over. This is because of the weak economy and the need for a quick government to be established without alot of complications. What can be less complicated than absolutism? One man descides everything and what he says goes. This is one of the advantages of absolutism. In our society today descisions, laws and rulings often take an extremely long time because of our democratized government. Everybody has to have their hand in on the descision, everyone must approve everything, everyone must make changes, and nobody can ever agree on anything. For these reasons our government is comlicated and judgements and descisions can take a very long time. In an absolutistic government the descisions are made immediately and without questioning or adjustment. This is clearly and extremely efficient means of government. On the other hand it is hard to find an absolutist leader that hasnt been driven crazy with power. Everything always seems to begin well, but as time goes on they begin to take advantage of their power and make drastic descisions that may not be in the best interest of anyone but themselves. For this reason, I dont believe that absolutism is the right form of government for any society. Although it may seem tempting, in time everything goes wrong in an absolutist government. Just looking at history i cant think that it would work out.

Locke

I, like most others in the blog, find my ideas lining up with Locke's the best. Unlike Descartes who believed humans are born with knowledge of things like math, Locke believes humans have an innate capacity to learn rather than innate knowledge. I agree with Locke on this point because the knowledge a person acquires comes from the way he/she is raised and the ideas put in his/her head by parents. I think a child has the ability to learn things like math but they are not born with it. If it were true that babies are born with innate knowledge of infinite perfection and whatnot then why aren't all people geniuses? Again, I believe knowledge relies upon the way a person is brought up and the ideas planted in their brain by the people that surround them. I also agree with his idea that the principles, "whatever is, is" and "it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be" are not universal ideas because there are people who do not have the mental capacity or stability to grasp ideas such as these. Like Locke said, it is through the senses that we gain ideas and concepts. For example at the age of 2 a toddler may not know that a stove is hot so he or she will touch it and by reaction pull back their hand because the sense of touch and heat tells them to. The next time the toddler sees the stove he or she will recognize, through the now ingrained sense of heat and pain that they remember from last time, and will not touch it again because their senses tell them not to. Experience is the main source of knowledge for people according to Locke and I totally agree with this principle. People are unique characters with an almost unlimited capacity for knowledge and feelings and thoughts, but it is through experiences and learning as they grow that shape their minds and determine how far that knowledge can run.

John Locke

Of the philosophers we studied in class on Thursday, the one whose ideas I agree with the most is John Locke. This is largely because I strongly disagree with the religious views of Spinoza. I disagree with his view that God is an idea or philosophy and with his attempt to strip God from his role as creator. I believe that God is the creator and is more than a philosophy and more than nature, which is all Spinoza took him to be. As far as Descartes, I respect that he acknowledges the presence of God as the creator of the world, but disagree with his view that God is not the caretaker or redeemer. I also disagree with the idea that God doesn’t interfere with humans and nature, one of the main principles of deism. I believe in a God that is active in the lives of His followers. I also think Descartes was wrong in believing that individuals are born with the knowledge of infinite perfection and math. Locke proved he was wrong in thinking this when he pointed out that if children weren’t aware of these innate ideas, then they weren’t innate. I also support Locke because he believed in faith, religion, and the existence of God. His view on the human mind is also more in accord with my own. Even though I don’t believe that the mind is completely empty or blank as he suggested, I agree with his ideas that experience and the senses shape the human mind. I agree with his thinking that humans are born with the potential for gaining knowledge, but that the knowledge is not already present in the brain.

John Locke's link to modern cognitive psychology

John Locke was the most important thinker to live in the Baroque period because he founded the tradition of empirical study. This became the basis of the modern sciences; especially psychology. One of the most important fields of modern psychology is the study of the brain's cognitive processes - called sensation and perception. These two terms describe how people first sense something in their environment, and how that is synthesized further in the mind. The study of sensation and perception has not drastically changed since its birth, with John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). The main point I am trying to make is that John Locke was much more than a philosopher, like Descartes. He was a man who made contributions that were essential to the formation of all modern sciences.
So the main question is then: which type of reasoning is more important, deductive (Descartes, obviously) or inductive reasoning (Locke). It seems pretty obvious that inductive reasoning led to the modern social sciences, but would Locke's inductive reasoning have come about if Descartes wouldn't have asked such profound questions? Descartes was the first to ask such profound, deep questions; he arguably started the Baroque philosophical movement. Locke, meanwhile, lived during the Baroque, but contributed to future progress much more than Descartes did. Therefore Descartes might have technically been the most "Baroque" thinker, but Locke was definitely the most influential on future generations.

John Locke

I most agree with the philosophy of John Locke. I agree that our experiences and senses are what determine our knowledge. I cannot agree with Descartes’ philosophy that people are born with innate ideas because it has been shown that different people know different ideas depending on where and how they live. Descartes claimed that people know of mathematics but many people in poorer nations know little of mathematics and according to Descartes they should. Unlike Descartes, Locke believes that we have innate capacity and that our experiences throughout life will determine how much and what kind of knowledge we will have. Therefore, places and people who value math and science will have more math and science experience whereas other places that value the arts will have more artistic experience. I like the metaphor that Locke uses in saying the mind is an empty cabinet in which ideas flow into it through the senses. This is how younger children learn. They experience something for the first time such as learning the alphabet. They see and hear the letters through the senses and after repetition they learn to recognize the letters as the alphabet and the names they correspond to and they then remember them. Eventually the children can form language with these letters, which was the ultimate goal. The second metaphor Locke uses is also good in the white paper with markings on it coming through experiences. Where Descartes would say everyone has the same innate ideas, Locke says people have different ideas but the same innate capacity. In the context of the metaphor, everyone has the same capacity, the paper, but different experiences (markings). If we examined the papers of different people in different places, we would see different markings and therefore different experiences and this makes sense even in today’s world. Furthermore, Locke believed in the optimistic view of humanity. This optimism would lead to a positive look on government that the people should have a good relationship with their government as opposed to a negative one under an absolute monarch and this would lead to the foundations of democracy. Locke helped lead to democratic governments and even our own government. John Locke’s philosophy on knowledge is one that I can agree with.