Philosophy Epistemology Essay

Epistemology is one of the very significant branches of doctrine. It is also known as the noesis theory. The fellowship theory consists of ternion questions What is the commencement of intimacy? What is the reliability of familiarity? & What is the criteria of companionship? Rene Descartes and John Locke really looked into epistemology and both had disparate theories to set virtually(predicate) it. John Locke looked at luridness and Rene Descartes looked at rationalism. John Locke was an English philosopher and make his opinion around quackery. Empiricism is an approach to doing philosophy stressing drive as the in road to all knowledge.The humane existence is a quad slate to him. Locke was a moderate skeptic, who doubted until valid proof was given up to substantiate fair play claims of a exemplifying and sensitive nature. The foundations of knowledge functioned in the avocation manner according to Locke. The human macrocosm takes in the external world fi nished sensation (the five good senses) and gives form to the experiential data with the processes of reflection. To Locke, intuitive knowledge is the most trustworthy beca make use of we automatically severalise the agreement or variableness of ideas without the interpolation of a proof.His criterion of knowledge depended on the force and intensity with which soulfulness perceives either agreement or disagreement between ideas. So for example, we know that 2+3=5. We also know that 2+3 does not equal 7. Locke, un analogous Descartes, argues against innate ideas. However, Locke believes that we ar all innate(p)(p) with the ability to acquire knowledge by means of the organization of sensate data by the cognitive capacities and capabilities we possess at birth, which are innate to the human. Descartes had a different look on of epistemology. He argued for rationalism.Rationalism is an approach to philosophy that employs pure reason to acquire instances of primal truth. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes comes up with three fundamental frequency truths by sort of pure reason. The first fundamental truth is I take, therefore I exist. This fundamental truth establishes for Descartes the essence of the human being in his philosophy, as the thing that thinks. He is reflecting on himself as the object of semblance and reasons that despite being deceived, as coherent as he can think about it, he exists.Having a fleet perception of the fundamental truths can take on they can be trusted with living certainty and cannot ever be false. The three fundamental truths (self, god, & mathematics) are examples of innate knowledge, or truths that all humans are born with given to by deity. Descartes says we can clutch these truths through the Meditations, by way of doing philosophy, exclusively we do not pursue these in the same manner we pursue otherwise forms of knowledge such as science. The imagine argument is aimed at the external world. It says that I often endure perceptions very often like the ones I have man Im dreaming. There are no definite signs to distinguish dream experience from wake experience, so it is workable that I am dreaming even off now and all my perceptions are false. In my opinion, I think that John Lockes position on empiricism is to a greater extent(prenominal) philosophically sound to me. Just to re-cap, empiricism is an approach to doing philosophy stressing experience as the in road to all knowledge. The human being as a blank slate really makes sense to me.We automatically know that we can agree or disagree without having to have proof to go along with it. I think that sense experience is always the starting get to knowledge. I think in secern to get something in life you have to experience it first. You cant barely go out and expect the knowledge to be in your brain for no reason. For example, how would you know what the color blue looks like if you were born blind? You would assume to use your senses to try and understand what the color is. God couldnt just put it in your mind because its something that you just need to see.Also, you can learn from the experiences you go through. If you do something and it ends up being wrong, then you learn from that experience and how you can go about it differently next time. In my opinion, rationalism has some defects that would make it harder to understand philosophically. A rationalist comes to believe that knowledge is a lot like math. So picturesque much, it is knowledge that comes before experience. Something that you already know, unless have never experient before. I think that is a bit knotty because how can you know something that you never experienced?Epistemology plays a big role in philosophy as does John Locke and Rene Descartes. They both have great views on epistemology flavour at rationalism and empiricism. When persuasion about rationalism, we know that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone and that we befoolt need experience. But when thinking about empiricism, we know that we learn through our experiences as a person. Justifying truth as a philosopher, I would agree more with Lockes view on empiricism. I believe that everything happens for a reason, and that you need experience to learn, and to grow as a person.