The Origin Of Ideas Essay, Research Paper

The Origins of Ideas

Webster & # 8217 ; s dictionary defines the word thought as 1 ) something, such as a idea or construct, that potentially or really exists in the head as a merchandise of mental activity, 2 ) an sentiment, a strong belief, or a rule, 3 ) a program, strategy, or method 4 ) the effect of a specific state of affairs, and 5 ) a impression. We have a better apprehension of these definitions today because of the ideas and Hagiographas of Descartes and John Locke. These two have really different positions on the beginning of thoughts. Descartes is a positivist, one who uses a method of enquiry that respects ground as the main beginning and trial of cognition, while Locke is an empiricist, one holding the attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon merely if they foremost have been confirmed by existent experience. Their positions are antonyms, but they both left their grade on the construct and beginning of & # 8220 ; the thought & # 8221 ; .

Locke believes that all our thoughts come from experience. The head has no innate thoughts, it has merely unconditioned abilities. Our head is like a clean white sheet of paper. It is experiences that fill our sheets of paper with characters and symbols ( 33 ) . Locke besides compares our acquisition of thoughts to that of a kid coming into the universe. If the kid grew up in a universe of black and white he would cognize nil ( have no thoughts ) of a universe of green or vermilion ( 35 ) . Our head can comprehend, retrieve, desire, deliberate, and will. It is these mental activities that are themselves, which along with experience, are the beginning of most of the thoughts we have.

Locke besides claims that our senses play a major function in making thoughts. The thoughts we have due to our senses are called esthesis. Without esthesis the head would hold nil to run on and hence could hold no thought of it operations. A individual has to hold esthesis before they can truly get down to hold thoughts. The operations of the head are non produced by esthesis, but esthesis is required to give the head stuff to work on ( 33-34 ) .

Merely as esthesis is an & # 8220 ; internal sense & # 8221 ; , Locke says there is another. This other & # 8220 ; internal sense & # 8221 ; he calls contemplation. Contemplation is the thoughts created by the head while reflecting on its ain operations. He says that it is either esthesis or contemplation, the lone two beginnings, from where thoughts are created. External objects furnish the head with thoughts based on our senses ( esthesis ) , and the head furnishes the apprehension of thoughts based on the operations it carries out ( contemplation ) ( 34 ) .

Descartes has a much different position on the beginnings of thoughts. He believes that people have unconditioned thoughts, or inherent aptitudes that every individual is born with. From these unconditioned thoughts we must utilize mind and ground to organize thoughts. It is non the senses and experiences that allow us to derive thoughts and cognition, but our head and the powers within it. Descartes shows this position in speculation two on page 23:

& # 8220 ; For since I now know that even organic structures are non, decently speech production, perceived by the senses or by the module of imaginativeness, but by the mind entirely, and that they are non perceived through their being touched or seen, but merely through Thursday

eir being understood, I obviously know that nil can be perceived more easy and more obviously than my ain mind.”

The two opposing positions on the beginnings of thoughts by Locke and Descartes reflect their different attacks to doctrine. Locke is an empiricist. He believes that all constructs and cognition are based on and can merely be justified by experiences. Empiricism claims that cognition derived by concluding does non be or is confined to & # 8220 ; analytical truths & # 8221 ; , which have no content. This fundamentally says there can be no & # 8220 ; rational & # 8221 ; method, and the nature of the universe can non be discovered through pure ground or contemplation.

Descartes is a positivist. He believes in ground and mind as the primary beginning and trial of cognition. Rationalism states that there are beliefs that are justified on idea entirely. It is based on mathematics and emphasiss deductive concluding over all other methods. Proofs are a popular manner of pass oning constructs and we see these proofs a batch in Descartes & # 8217 ; speculations. Everything must besides hold a sufficient ground or that a procedure must happen within some substance and can non be by itself. These beliefs can originate from rational intuition, the apprehensiveness of axiomatic truth, or from deductive logical thinking. Extreme rationalism goes every bit far to show the belief that pure thought and logical thinking can detect the truths of physical scientific discipline and even history.

I consider myself more on the empiricist side of the spectrum. I believe that experience is the primary beginning of our thoughts. I truly like and understand Locke & # 8217 ; s statement about the newborn kid. If the kid is raised in a universe of black and white, it will ne’er see other colourss. The kid will hold no unconditioned thoughts of these colourss because the kid doesn & # 8217 ; t even know the colourss exist. I don & # 8217 ; t see how one could utilize ground and mind to derive cognition if there are things they haven & # 8217 ; t experienced and hence don & # 8217 ; t cognize approximately.

I do agree with the positivist position somewhat in one country. Once I have experienced things and have been awakened to new thoughts, I have to form them ; otherwise they would do no sense. This is where the positivist position enters. In order to transform these crude thoughts in to knowledge I have to do connexions between my experiences and thoughts. This requires rational idea and logical thinking, the footing for the positivist position.

Experience? Reasoning? How do we develop thoughts and go the people we are. Possibly it is a combination of the two methods. The beginning of thoughts is a really complex issue. Two great philosophers have opposing positions on how an person from the clip of birth develops thoughts and transforms them into cognition. How are we to cognize which 1 is right? Without experience how do we develop thoughts about things and without concluding how do we set the thoughts together and do sense of them so we can derive cognition. We need both of these methods of making thoughts in order gain the most we can. Neither one is wholly right ; neither one is wholly incorrect. It is when you combine the two, utilizing as small or every bit much rationalism/empiricism as one likes to acquire the true beginning of thoughts.

32d