Faith Manheimer

December 13, 2015

Intro. Philosophy
Monday/Wednesday at 7-8:20 pm
In the world of philosophy there are two particular philosophers that stand out in terms of
answering lifes most difficult questions about the existence of God, nature, and reality. The
names of these two philosophers are well known to be as Rene Descartes the rationalist and the
empiricist John Locke. Rene Descartes was an intellectual man who had established a logical,
mathematical reasoning method to discover unknown truths about our universe. He believed that
being logical and having common sense, or as he liked to call it natural reason, can lead to a
worthy understanding of complex ideas, and rationale. Reasoning can distinguish reality form
illusion and give meaning to experience. (Rene Descartes, 255) Rene Descartes also relied on
doubting everything that had not yet been verified as true in the use of his own reason. Whereas,
John Locke who was a respected man believed reason alone is incapable of proving the existence
of reality itself, rather experience is what gives meaning to our sense data.
Obviously between these two philosophers there is a divergence of ideas in answering,
and understanding truths that are as what they appear to be, and using a higher level of reason to
discover the knowledge of reality. First off, Rene Descartes philosophical stand point is based off
being a rationalist who doubts every person, material object, idea, and thought in order to seek
out the most reliable truth in a form that best suits the perceiver which is himself. By having this
altering insight Descartes deliberately discovered this method as it is called the methodic doubt.
There are truths that cannot be derived from observation or experiment, but can be
characterized as being universal truths, or as being a bit predictable. This is known as a priori
knowledge or innate ideas, and with these innate ideas they can bring forth ultimate truths about
nature, reality, or a religious figure that can be determined without the perceiver making any

Faith Manheimer
December 13, 2015
Intro. Philosophy
Monday/Wednesday at 7-8:20 pm
actual observations. According to the coherence theory of truth, New or unclear ideas are
evaluated in terms of reasonable rational, and logical consistency in relation to the already
known truths. If these truths were to be considered true then those truths are coherently
consistent with one another by being rational. (Rene Descartes, 256)
To extend on Rene Descartes innate ideas there is yet another form of reason that is,
reason without reference to sense experience. (Rene Descartes, 262) which is a priori
knowledge. In contrast there is an empirical knowledge that is derived from sense experience
which would relate to John Locks philosophical view in ways that knowledge is not universal
due to the various characteristics of an observer, and due to acquired changes that had to take
place in order to agree upon truths, or truths of fact. For example Rene Descartes had believed
that we humans are born with innate ideas, such as the idea of gods existence, the reality of life,
or the shape of a triangle that has been essentially implanted into our brains from the second we
emerge into the physical world.
Additionally, Rene Descartes later explains to us that even our senses sometimes deceive
us. Saying that if we perceive something that far away such as looking off into the distance on a
road, and seeing a puddle of water out in the middle of the road, but it turns out to only be a
mirage that deceives our perspective. Though we may get deceived of our senses every so often
that means we must not doubt what is being presented right in front of our eyes as undeniable
doubt. As to which we cannot reasonably have any doubt. (Rene Descartes, 265) With this idea
in mind Descartes reminds us that he rejects sense data as being an unreliable basis for certainty,
and therefore making him deny both the external, and physical world because it is nothing but a

Faith Manheimer
December 13, 2015
Intro. Philosophy
Monday/Wednesday at 7-8:20 pm
mental construct that we have established within our minds. Another argument that Descartes
had constructed was the idea of the cogito or ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. (Rene
Descartes, 267) In which the cogito must be understood in first person that way not a single
person can deny their own existence when that individual is consciously aware of their own
existence, and purpose. Going along with the cogito there is an argument in which a human can
identify, and know everything-which includes material, and bodily states- because of our mind.
Furthermore, on the opposite side of Descartes there are contrasting ideas in John Lockes
philosophy in which he believes ideas are reflections of our experiences, and only those
experiences can be thought of once we have lived through them already. John Locke would
persist that our experiences are essentially just copies that are caused by the basic sensations in
which an ideas natural function rests at. There is a correspondence theory which literally means
that a truth can only be true if the idea corresponds correctly to whatever else that already exists,
or corresponds to a fact. John Lockes idea differs from the coherency theory of truth that
rationalist Rene Descartes relies on as the basis of uncovering the truth from what is factual.
Another thing that sets John Locke apart from Rene Descartes is in the concept of innate
ideas. John Lockes point of view is that the Cartesian-style is useless, and nothing but for
amusement towards Rene Descartes audience who do not question his knowledge of what he
knows to be true and what not to be true. John Locke being the skeptic gives him the advantage
to prove that there are absolute truths for anything that cannot be refuted against. He goes on to
say that all humans are born with a blank slate, and that we are not born with innate ideas.
Locke suggested that the mind is better compared to an empty pantry, waiting to be stocked by

Faith Manheimer
December 13, 2015
Intro. Philosophy
Monday/Wednesday at 7-8:20 pm
experience. (John Locke, 286) John Locke has coined the term as tabula rasa, which is the
clean slate of innate ideas waiting to be filled up with experience, and sensory data.
Both John Locke and Rene Descartes can agree on the idea that there is a metaphysical
force, or something that holds the qualities of personal experience. This force of something is
a complex idea that is known to be a substance that takes form in color, taste, size, shape, etc.
Though John Locke may agree with Rene Descartes on just this one thing, he begins to
counterpoint that we do not have a clear, or distinct idea as to what substance itself is. It is then
that John Locke establishes an idea of kinds of substances, and he goes onto explain that
observation, and experience reveal different types of ideas in ways that make a group of ideas
cluster together. Every so often there is a difficult time when we have trouble describing these
forms of substances that can depend on our everyday experiences that can confirm various forms
of substances. Lastly, John Locke states that there are existence of two different substances
known as matter and mind, and that he could accept a Cartesian-type of dualism, but reject Rene
Descartess rationalism.
In addition to John Locke, he has come up with a system of distinguishing between two
completely different substances there are the primary qualities which are the sensible qualities,
such as shape, size, motion, and location are examples of what primary qualities are, and primary
qualities exist independently of whatever the perceiver perceives. The second of John Lockes
substances are known as the secondary qualities, and they turn out to be the subjective qualities
which are color, sound, texture, and taste these qualities exist upon on the perceiver itself. With
these two objective-subjective qualities it raises the question as to whether if there is a reality out

Faith Manheimer
December 13, 2015
Intro. Philosophy
Monday/Wednesday at 7-8:20 pm
there that its own existence itself is independent. Objective world exists independently of our
perceptions and that it exists, and not simply as a figment of our imagination or a mental
construct. (John Locke, 288)
If it were up to me to determine whether either philosopher had the better philosophical
system I would have to agree with the beliefs, and views that Rene Descartes held. With his
rational will to doubt everything in its own existence in order to expend on the foundation of
certainty. He was able to draw to a conclusion to a method of rational inquiry that sort of
established an incontrovertible certainty that was the cogito. Which played a role for him to
attempt at proving the existence of God, and that God is the ultimate truth to the path of
knowledge, but even then the cogito was a more solid idea of proving our own existence as
beings.
In conclusion, Rene Descartes has a divine philosophical view that applies to the law of
logic, and is the groundwork of beginning to understanding the fundamentals of rationale, and
being able to use deductive reasoning in order to discover new truths of reality or even the
existence of objective-subjective qualities that actually exist whether we believe them to be or
not.