Something I found interesting about Locke was that his opinions on the difference between humans and other animals are similar to those of Descartes. They both believe that humans have the ability to use the information they receive through perception, sensation, and reflection, in order to expand their intelligence. They are capable of discerning and comparing, which Locke argues is the basis for human knowledge. Without being able to distinguish one object from another and compare facts about them, we would have little to no intelligence whatsoever.
Descartes would agree with this idea to a certain extent, since he would be inclined to say "nature taught me so" at some point. But I still think he would like Locke's explanation for the difference, despite the fact that Locke thinks all knowledge originates as a sensation that is reflected upon. Descartes never really committed to a solid explanation for what makes humans different (his argument seemed to boil down to "just 'cause"), but this seems to be the direction he was heading in--just that humans have the ability to rationalize, evaluate, etc ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
good summary and i agree with you about how if we were not able to compare and contrast things we would not be able to gain knowledge. we would see the sun and know that it was warm but not be able to destinguish that the sun makes it warm.
Yes..I agree with Matt. Excellent summary =D
Post a Comment