Some Reasoning That Makes Sense

on
I personally found Locke's writing much more tolerable than that of Descarte in my reading. This was mainly due to a better flow of logic I feel in Locke's writing, that Descarte seemed to lack. Locke made few assumptions in his work, instead, he followed reason and observations, whereas Descarte seemed to make assumptions first and then try to prove them.

I deeply enjoyed reading Locke's thoughts on ideas. What he conveys makes sense to me, and is in most senses sound and arguable. Sensation allows immediate thoughts, reactions you could say, while reflections allow you to process and learn what caused these sensations. This process gives knowledge as to how the world around us works, and how we can or can't do certain things. It just all seems very well thought-out in my opinion.

To me, Locke is a much better read than Descarte. Do you agree with Locke's logic regarding ideas?

P.S. - Commented on Logan Turner and Jacob Clabo's posts

Comments

Jamie Peters said…
Personally, I believe that Locke wrote this book because of Descartes's writing. Descartes mentioned in his discourse that expounding upon the existence of thought would take up all of his book. Locke must have read his work and decided to stake his claim on it.
September 23, 2019 at 6:34 PM
AnnaKate Burleson said…
Locke is definitely good at providing a thorough explanation of his thoughts! He's one-hundred percent a writer, and it's evident throughout this entire essay. I would agree that Locke's thoughts make a lot of sense in the way that he explains them. I would disagree, though, that Descartes made assumptions and then tried to prove them. On the contrary, it seemed to me that he went back to ground zero and used reason and observations to build his worldview, just like Locke does in his essay. They just drew very different conclusions following the same method.
September 23, 2019 at 6:36 PM
Post a Comment