Descartes Vs Locke

This discussion will help identify the differences between rationalism and empiricism.
Task
If Descartes’ rational knowledge theory is right, does the idea of something exist primarily in our mind?
If Locke’s materialist knowledge is right, does that mean that objects have to be experienced before thoughts that judge or manipulate those experiences can be formed?
Is there such a thing as an innate idea (one formed before experiencing the world) or does a person first have to experience something in the world to start forming ideas? Use the theories of these two philosophers (in detail) to discuss these arguments. Focus on the logical form of each argument (as each is logically formed). Compare and contrast the logic regarding rational and empirical theories.
(Keep in mind one of Locke’s major distinctions, that “primary” qualities must be “in the object” itself because they are necessary for the object to be what it is; but that “secondary” qualities are only in us, our mind, because of our preferences. An example of this would be a table that is brown in color. The table’s flatness is primary quality because it must be flat to be a table, but the table’s color brown is secondary because it could be any color and we perceive color in certain ways because of our senses… even if we are color blind, the table is still a table because of its shape.)
Making Connections
In your responses, be sure to discuss how the way that Descartes’ concept of the thinking self as a thinking being relates to our previous material from Unit 2. When we rely on the mind for knowledge, are there potential questions for how we should describe emotions and sensory information from the body itself? In Locke’s readings from this unit and the previous unit, the direct sense experience and our memories of them are very important. What about examples of understanding other people and their emotions, that do not relate to our own senses or body?

Last Completed Projects