It was really fascinating to jump from Descartes' near-skepticism and doubt of all knowledge to Locke's deep analysis of the mind. It's really odd because they seem to both be fixated on many of the same topics, namely ideas and thought, but in completely different attitudes. Descartes wants to find out why things are the way they are and decides to reach those conclusions using questions. Locke also seems to want those things, but he doesn't ask hardly any questions at all. Although I don't necessarily disagree with most of what he said, he did pass a lot off as fact that might be better filed under opinion. Examples would include his reasoning regarding the two main divisions of the mind as sensation and reflection- I feel like there are truths inherent to humanity that anyone knows that he didn't really include here.
It was also really fascinating to see how Locke touched on the mind's state of activity during dreams and sleep compared to Descartes' reasoning that one can't necessarily be sure there is a difference or reality between wakefulness and sleep. Locke's sentence regarding the dullness of his soul stood out to me because I wouldn't have classified him as that- he's clearly put so much thought into all of these subjects, but he doesn't see himself as a thinker. Yet another interesting contrast to Descartes there...
I would pay to hear a discussion between the two regarding perception, thought, reality, etc.
Edit: Commented on Hailey and Mackenzie's posts.
It was also really fascinating to see how Locke touched on the mind's state of activity during dreams and sleep compared to Descartes' reasoning that one can't necessarily be sure there is a difference or reality between wakefulness and sleep. Locke's sentence regarding the dullness of his soul stood out to me because I wouldn't have classified him as that- he's clearly put so much thought into all of these subjects, but he doesn't see himself as a thinker. Yet another interesting contrast to Descartes there...
I would pay to hear a discussion between the two regarding perception, thought, reality, etc.
Edit: Commented on Hailey and Mackenzie's posts.
Comments
I did find it funny when Locke presented himself as a dull soul. When I initially read that statement, it reminded me of Descartes' many, repetitive statements about his humility in all that he was writing. Because of this, I began to wonder if, perhaps Locke was trying to seem humble as well? After this, I began to question how many other philosophers write poorly of themselves while in the midst of penning great, mind-boggling novels about explosive new methods of thought and understanding? For instance, is this a common trend among philosophers, or merely a sneaky tactic to get readers to like the author?