Sunday, March 1, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too agree most strongly with the ideas of John Locke. His ideas seem the most reasonable to me since I do not believe that everyone is born with innate knowledge (like Descartes) but that everyone is capable of gaining knowledge. I also believe it's true that people acquire knowledge through their senses. I however, do believe the mind is a blank slate at birth and that through your senses you acquire knowledge, because how can children be born with knowledge? And even if they were, it would be impossible to test this theory. Children are born without the capability to communicate, walk and care for themselves. Everything they learn is acquired through the senses and taught to them by others who have already obtained some knowledge.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I identify most strongly with the ideas of Locke, I do find the philosophies of Pascal on religion intriguing. His Pensees really made me think and put things in perspective for me. It's true that there is no possible way for someone to prove God exists, so one must choose. It really is like taking a bet, and you are betting the afterlife of your soul. I think put this way, most people would agree that the best outcome for the bet is to choose God, just as Pascal did. He puts it simply saying that you have more to gain if you choose God because you will gain two lives instead of losing one.
I would also have to agree with John Locke but for a completly different reason. Locke strongly believed that property is a natural right and comes from labor. When we apply labor we are given ownership to land, so therefore government should not be able to take away land. I agree completly with Locke and this concept. Lockes understannding of "the self" is also somehting I found interesting and one I believed in. "The self" is something that is self aware and fixed in the body. I found this point of Lockes really interesting when reading.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when looking at Spinozas idea I found some things that I agreed with entirely. He states that determinations are made by the bodys appetites and natural desires. I certainly agree with this. When you make a choice it is mostly altered by what your body desires or wants. Whatever our mind decides to do is certainly influenced by our desires. Basically, what he's saying is that the mind and body are two different things.