Descartes and Locke have good accounts of the origins of ideas. These accounts are both vastly different and believe they are the better. Descartes believes that ideas are innate or that we are born with them. On the other hand Locke believes that we gain our ideas through experiences. Descartes account is a bit too far-fetched and unrealistic. This is why Locke’s account is far superior to that of Descartes. In the following paragraphs both their strengths and weaknesses will be displayed to show that Locke’s strengths outweigh his weaknesses showing he has the origins of ideas on lock. The first thing to explain is exactly what each believes. Descartes raises the predicament that the wax is still wax even when it is melted and has lost …show more content…
He then goes on to say that there is a sense unknown to the senses. This sense is only perceived by the mind. This is what he refers to as an innate idea. An innate idea is an idea we are born with. He says that we attach ideas we are born with to senses from the outside world. That the idea of the object existing links the states of the wax. This is because real things just do not disappear. Descartes would be considered a rationalist. A rationalist is someone who believes in universal innate ideas. These ideas apply to everyone even though they do not have the same experiences. Locke on the other hand is and Empiricist. Empiricist believe that you gain all ideas from experience and that innate ideas do not exist. He then goes on to say that what Descartes is saying is innate ideas is in fact not innate ideas at all. He says that at birth the mind is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, that humans fill with ideas …show more content…
In this case most of Descartes’s strengths turn into his weaknesses and become Locke’s strengths. Descartes believes ideas are innate while Locke believes ideas come from experience. This argument is kind of a dead lock they do not really have a rebuttal either way. Locke just brings up that the ideas Descartes believes are wrong just that they are not innate. Descartes main account for his origins of ideas is universal assent. Locke shoots this down by saying that if everyone could have different experiences then the idea of universal assent could be doubted making it in fact false. So Descartes main argument is shut down right off the top. Descartes then brings up that principles are implicitly known. Locke once again has a comeback. He brings up that the whole notion of implicit knowledge is meaningless because either you know something or you do not it cannot just be implied. Also how do you know if it is implicit knowledge or if it was learned? Yet again Locke has turned Descartes strength into his weakness and in turn made it his own strength. Since Descartes doesn’t have any ground to stand on Locke brings up the argument that children and Idiots cannot assent to the principles so these principles cannot be innate. So Descartes tries yet again by saying everyone is born with reason and that some just have not come to the