Knowledge

Locke speaks about how "rational knowledge is the perception of the certain agreement or disagreement of any two ideas by the intervention of one or more other ideas." He continues with how judgement is the taking of those ideas and then make them frequent, which i thought was interesting because these ideas that are considered judgement from which can have consequences when turned into words to other people. What I think he is trying to say or what i understand from it is that people have judgement, but those ideas don't always have to be spoken, and when they are will always have some sort of consequence.

Knowing God Exists

Locke explains that God is proven true without showing himself of any definitive form, but because we have knowledge and ideas. Even though he doesn't believe God is innate, he still believes that God is a definitive factor in our lives even though we may question it is what I got from it. He gives multiple examples of how God is obvious without us having to think about it any more then what he presents.

the truth about god

later in his argument about god locke makes the same argument that descarte made. he says there must be a god because we were created and we could not have been created by nothing. also he says anything that has a begining (ie birth) must have been created, and this goes back to the created by god idea. also he says who ever created us is all knowing and with out there would be no knowledge in the world. by this argument locke is saying, i think, if there wasn't a god then there would be no knowledge at all in the universe.

the existance of god

locke is convinced that there is a god and he is as sure about god as he is about mathmatics. locke says that you can prove god like you can prove math, but then he never really gives a proof, he just says that because we exist there must be a god. im not sure if he really believes that or not, but i find it a little much to just take. maybe i'm just a skeptic and i don't want my beliefs to aklter the way i view lockes writting.

the search for truth

Like Descartes, Locke was also intrested in finding truth. however locke is not as concerned with findin the truth in everything. locke doesn't think it's necessary to question everything, and disclame all knowledge. locke says there are some things you just don't need to know. he uses the example of the sailor. the sailor has to know about ropes of all lenths and how to tie many knots, however he can not fathom the depths of the ocean, but that doesn't mean that the ocean isn't deep. Locke says we don't need to be bothered with the things that escape out knowledge.

innate ideas

Locke is very adament about the fact that no one is born with innate ideas. unlike descartes who belived that there are many simple ideas you are born with. Lock however feels that there are no ideas imprinted on you mine before you are born. He is convinced that evertything you know no matter how simple was learned. he makes the point that some ideas that could be percieved as being innate were really just so simple that you learn them very easily. he uses the example of color recognition. it isn't hard to learn but it is learned.

Knowledge of the existence of the external world

Locke agrees with Desacrtes' arguments made about the knowledge of ourselves and God but he is unique in his argument on sensitive knowledge. Locke views sensitive's knowledge problem to be the idea that the skeptic holds: if we only have acess to our own ideas then how do we even know a world out there exists? In response to the skeptic's feelings, Locke formulates three strategies. First, he wonders if anyone can deny the existence of the external world and simply states to not take the skeptic seriously. Second, he tells those whose belief is strong in the skeptic to continue to believe since we already know enough to help us get around in the world. Third, he creates a long and detailed argument based on inference to fidn truth in the claim that an external world exists. In this argument, he uses the example of a deaf person never knowing the sound of a French horn to explain that we cannot get any ideas without the organ appropriate for them. He also says that these ideas can be recieved only in certain situations.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge of the existence of things

Locke believes that we know the existence of things well but regarding the nature of the things, we are not so capable of understanding. He creates a three part argument of the knowledge of the existence of things. The first part of the argument deals with our knowledge over ourselves, intution. The second part of the argument deals with our knowledge of the existence of God or demonstration. The third part deals with our knowledge of the existence of the external world, which is known through sensitive knowledge.
- Chris Rehonic

God and Language

Right at the beginning of the section Locke describes how God's greatest gift to people was the way to communicate ideas and words to one another. He says without language, people would be just like animals who can make sounds and communicate, but have no way of speaking language to each other. I thought it was interesting that Locke picked language out as the most important thing people were given, to convey the ideas they have. Locke also considers those people without an extensive vocabulary or correct use of language to be ignorant.

3 levels of Knowledge according to Locke

The first level of Knowledge that is the highest level is INTUITION. With intuition we can immediately see an agreement or disagreement the moment an idea that is presented to us is understood. Right below intuition falls DEMONSTRATION. With demonstration, a proof must be worked through in order to see a connection between ideas. Each step of the proof involves intuition and therefore all knowledge is dependent on intuition. The final and lowest level involves SENSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that is a pseudo- knowledge. Locke estabilishes these three levels of knowledge that build upon the highest level of INTUITION.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge: what is it? (Locke)

Locke defines knowledge as "the perception by reason of teh connection and agreement or repulsion and disagreement between any two or more ideas" (CHapter IV). Locke then presents us with four different types of disagreements or agreements that reason can percieve to produce knowledge. One type is Identity and Diversity which is A=A or a bachelor is not married. The next is Relation which means a diamond is a square laid on its side. The next is Coexistence which is that the area of a triangle is always one half the base times the height. The last deals with existence belonging to ideas themselves, which is the idea of God and of the self. A strong connection between ideas must exist in order ot be called knowledge. When discussing ideas of disagreement, teh connection is of illogical inconsistency. When talking about ides in agreement, a necessary connection needs to be made.
- Chris Rehonic

Locke vs. Descartes differences...

As we also talked about in class, was the way Locke and Descartes differs in there view of innate ideas. Locke believes that even though there may be certain instances where innate ideas can be found, there is no such thing as having an innate idea. On the other hand, Descartes feels that the examples Locke gave as not being able to be innate, Descartes believes these ideas are wrong because he tends to believe in innateness. But at the same time, I as a reader, have to question how much the idea of God in their discussions if forced out because of how harsh the punishments would be for speaking out about things out of the ordinary like the non-existence of God.

God and Innateness

Continuing along the lines of Locke's discussion about God being the closest to being innate. I feel that this is still very unclear because if it were innate there would not be a need for so much discussion about whether or not there is such a thing as God, and also people would not be fighting over beliefs to this very day. If God was such a solidified innate idea many would just know what to think and if their beliefs are indeed true, but with this point, I tend to agree with Locke that there is no such thing as innateness.