Philosophy Epistemology Essay

Epistemology is one of the very main(prenominal) branches of doctrine. It is also known as the fellowship theory. The companionship theory consists of trine questions What is the commencement of acquaintance? What is the reliability of acquaintance? & What is the criteria of knowledge? Rene Descartes and John Locke really looked into epistemology and two had distinguishable theories to nest it. John Locke looked at empiricist philosophy and Rene Descartes looked at free idea. John Locke was an English philosopher and organise his opinion around quackery. Empiricism is an approach to doing philosophy stressing have it away as the in road to all knowledge.The sympathetic cosmos is a blank slate to him. Locke was a moderate skeptic, who doubted until valid proof was addicted to substantiate providedness claims of a gushing(prenominal) and sensitive nature. The foundations of knowledge functioned in the pursuit manner according to Locke. The human creation takes in the external world get intoe and by means of sensation (the five awarenesss) and gives form to the experiential data through the processes of reflection. To Locke, intuitive knowledge is the most trustworthy beca determination we automatically discern the agreement or noise of ideas without the interjection of a proof.His criterion of knowledge depended on the force and intensity with which mortal 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, opposed Descartes, argues against innate ideas. However, Locke believes that we ar all innate(p) with the ability to acquire knowledge through 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 soak up of epistemology. He argued for rationalism.Rationalism is an approach to philosophy that employs pure reason to acquire instances o f primordial truth. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes comes up with three profound truths by mode of pure reason. The first fundamental truth is I imply, therefore I exist. This fundamental truth establishes for Descartes the essence of the human be in his philosophy, as the thing that thinks. He is reflecting on himself as the object of whoremonger and reasons that despite being deceived, as wide as he can think some it, he exists.Having a shit perception of the fundamental truths can undertake they can be trusted with sheer(a) certainty and cannot ever be false. The three fundamental truths (self, god, & mathematics) are examples of innate knowledge, or truths that all humans are innate(p) with given to by deity. Descartes says we can listen these truths through the Meditations, by way of doing philosophy, merely we do not pursue these in the same manner we pursue former(a) forms of knowledge such as science. The pipe daydream argument is aimed at the external world.It says that I often excite perceptions very oftentimes homogeneous the ones I have temporary hookup Im dreaming. There are no definite signs to distinguish dream experience from wake experience, so it is affirmable that I am dreaming refine now and all my perceptions are false. In my opinion, I think that John Lockes position on empiricism is to a greater extent 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 burden to knowledge. I think in revisal to fit something in life you have to experience it first. You cant just 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 take aim 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 intimately 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 beauteous much, it is knowledge that comes before experience. Something that you already know, provided have never experience before. I think that is a bit snarled 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 spirit at rationalism and empiricism. When thinking about rationalism, we know that knowl edge can be acquired through reason alone and that we dont 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.