We initially discussed Locke as a political philosopher, whose theory of the social contract justified government only in defense of individual's "natural rights" to life, liberty and property. Now we're looking at his empiricist epistemology: the theory that all knowledge comes from sense experience.
Watch the first five-and-a-half minutes of this video for a recap of Locke's ideas in context. Then, for 25 points, answer any one of these questions about Locke's philosophy in a short post (5 sentences or bullet points) a. Is Locke correct that we all see the same objects, but perceive and interpret them somewhat differently? If so, should think make us more or less skeptical of our knowledge? b. Some think Locke's theory of the mind as a "blank slate" ignores our instinctual understanding of moving, eating, etc. Do you think instinct should be considered a form of knowledge? c. Do you see any connection between Locke's empiricist epistemology and his political ideology?
39 Comments
Max Portman
11/16/2016 04:56:52 pm
I agree entirely with the notion that we see the same things but each perceive them a bit differently, food being the perfect example in regards to look vs. taste. If this is true than in actuality, we should not depend on instinct as a form of knowledge. Instinct is something that derives from prior experience of something or even possibly a previous life. I perceive knowledge as something that is factual and can be backed up with evidence whereas instinct is more in line with the notion of wisdom. Knowledge can be useless in some situations but wisdom is something that can always be helpful when interacting with someone socially or confrontationally or even making an everyday decision such as picking what to eat for lunch.
Reply
Izzy Halloran
11/16/2016 06:04:56 pm
B. Locke's theory of primary and secondary qualities is very intriguing to me. Although I agree with Locke's qualities to some extent, I have to question if his primary qualities are truly objective. In the video, Hank uses the apple as an example. He mentions that one of the primary qualities of the apple is its height. But how can we know for sure that we see the same height as everyone else does? As Descartes mentions, we cannot always rely on our senses because they can trick us. Contrary to what Locke states, I don't think there is any way to know for certain that we see the same objects. I have had disagreements with people over the shape or size of objects. We should become more skeptical of our senses because they lie to us more than we think. My beliefs are more aligned with the beliefs of Descartes and his theory of rationalism. We can only rely on reason.
Reply
Izzy Halloran
11/20/2016 12:56:52 pm
(Actually question a)
Reply
Kelly Farley
11/16/2016 06:16:02 pm
I agree with Locke that we all see the same objects, but we may perceive and interpret them differently. He separates the properties of an object by primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are things such as weight, mass, density; all things that the object itself has. A secondary quality is a property that comes from one of the five senses. He argues that these properties can be debated or perceived differently from one person to the next which is correct. I think this would definitely make us more skeptical of our knowledge, because how can you know if what you interpret to be correct actually is? However, I think it should make us less skeptical of our knowledge because you are not the only person who may be incorrect. Because everyone sees things differently, everyone has the chance of being wrong, therefore there is no reason to be skeptical when there is no correct answer.
Reply
Giulia Dostie
11/16/2016 07:29:51 pm
A. I believe that Locke is somewhat correct in saying that we all universally see the same object, yet I believe our mind has the ability to play tricks on us, that makes us easily confused about things. For example the video showed an apple, we can all agree that it was round in shape and a bit tall, but maybe I thought that was rather small for the average apple from looking at it through a screen, while the speaker might have thought it to be a large apple when holding it. So, yes shapes are universal, but I feel as though they can be distorted by the mind. But I do fully agree that everyone's perception and interpretation of things is different, because for example, a color blind person wouldn’t see the apple as red, maybe a dark purple, even though they know what color an apple is suppose to be. Thinking should make us more skeptical of our knowledge because this whole world could just be an illusion, or a mind trick. Even though that is such an intense accusation, how do we know our mind isn’t playing tricks on us, because we don’t know how in depth our mind is capable of going.
Reply
Kiera Lee
11/16/2016 08:00:40 pm
I agree with Locke's idea that we all see the same objects, but perceive and interpret them somewhat differently. With that, I believe that we should be skeptical, but in the sense that we should just question things and converse about ideas amongst each other to gain more knowledge. In learning about other people's perspectives and ideas we open our minds to more aspects of life and possibilities than we could imagine. So when I say "skeptical" I more accurately mean that we should challenge ourselves to simply seek more knowledge; not to change your view on something entirely, but to at least be able to expose yourself to multiple viewpoints and other's way of thinking.
Reply
Dixie O'Connell
11/16/2016 10:47:20 pm
a. I agree with Locke's philosophy because everything has a different connotation to each individual. It can make us more skeptical because one has to be conscious that symbols have a different meaning to everyone, and one does not know what can truly have the right perception of an objects secondary qualities.
Reply
Ryan Munzlinger
11/17/2016 04:06:52 am
A. yea we all see the same object. But we all use that object differently and perceive it differently. The best way for me to relate this is through skateboarding. I skateboard everyday and have since like about 4. So when I'm outside I look at everything like how can I skate this object how can I jump down or over this thing. See you might see a stair set as something that is their to help you get to a spot that is to high for us to climb so we use stairs. I see a stair set and all I wanna do is jump down it with my board. Same with benches or ledges and handrails. You might see a bench as something to sit on to rest if you have been walking for awhile. I see a bench as something to skate. A new obstacle to try and grind. Or a ledge. You might sit on a ledge to let your feet rest. I see that ledge as an obstacle for me to skate. Handrails are like this as well. You might see a handrail as something to put your hand on so you have something to grab onto if you fall down the stairs. I see a handrail ass something for to slide on. Everyone sees the same object. But we don't all see the same purpose that it was intended for. Which allows creativity and exploration of new object what is possible to create and would someone ever use this. . . . a a . . .
Reply
Henry Ehlers
11/17/2016 04:39:53 am
A) yes, I think Locke is correct in saying that we all see the same objects but interpret them differently. For me, this gives me more faith in the sanctity of knowledge because it means that regardless of how something is interpreted, there's still a factual, unbiased answer to what something is. A rock is a rock, even if some would call it a boulder and others would call it a pebble.
Reply
Paige Whittle
11/17/2016 07:48:04 am
I agree with Locke in that we all see the same object but interpret them differently. For some people, different objects are symbolic specifically to themselves. Because of this, they may interpret the same object differently than others because the object has a different personal meaning to them. I do not think instinct should be a form of knowledge because by definition, knowledge are skills acquired through experience or education. Instincts, such as moving and eating, are carried out without any worldly experiences after birth; therefore, instincts cannot be considered knowledge. Since Locke believes that knowledge comes from experience, and he believes that any person can politically rule, he believes that all humans can develop the necessary knowledge for life through their worldly experiences.
Reply
Corey Van Huff
11/17/2016 07:52:28 am
A. Well I definitely agree with Locke because no two people see things the exact same way. One person may see the sky and say its light blue while another may say it's indigo. It's like Master Oogway said, " Stay, No Stay, Noodle, No Noodle" It all is subjective. The one thing we all can seem to agree on is the thing exists and it is the basic form of this thing. It adds skepticism in a way because how much do we actually know? The answer: not as much as we think we do.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
11/17/2016 07:58:09 am
(Question B)
Reply
Marissa Seely
11/17/2016 12:03:53 pm
I feel like instinct and knowledge are two very separate things. I agree with Locke's theory of the blank state, in a sense that we're born with no experiences, therefore no knowledge. However, we are born with instincts, such as crying, laughing, smiling, etc. These instinctual actions have nothing to do with our knowledge. We can cry and smile often without even thinking about it beforehand. We are a blank slate of knowledge, not a blank state of everything and anything else. We're born with two legs and two arms and a nose and the ability to laugh and cry and smile. We build on our knowledge over time, through our senses and experiences, and this is our only source of knowledge. The involuntary actions of smiling and crying are not to be confused with knowing. It's entirely separate, thus the blank state theory stands valid.
Reply
Allie Talavera
11/17/2016 02:44:44 pm
b. I believe that instinct and knowledge are two very different things in this case. As stated by Locke, we gain knowledge from experience by using our senses, but instincts come naturally to us. For example, when a child is born, it's first instinct is to cry, but they were not taught to do so. Eating, sleeping, crying and breathing are all things our body is conditioned to do without thought. Things such as reading, writing, or learning how to talk are skills gained through experience. There is a clear difference between knowing how to do something from the start and learning how to do something which is why I would not categorize instinct as a form of knowledge.
Reply
tara e
11/17/2016 06:40:59 pm
i think that at least physically we are all seeing relatively the same things when we look at the sky or a pen with different variations from person to person. personally i think we should all be skeptical of our knowledge but thats mainly due to the fact that im paranoid and constantly questioning my exisistence. But as far as being skeptical of our knowledge based off what we see i think it depends on what facts you and those around you have concluded. if there is a cup of pens on a table, and you and those around you can collectively agree that it is in fact a cup of pens and can agree on the color, shape, size, etc. i would say there isn't much of a reason to question it. however as far as things like someone seeing something no one else can, or seeing faces in shadows i would most definitely question what our senses aren't telling us.
Reply
Natalie Gunderson
11/18/2016 10:48:03 am
I believe Locke is correct in thinking that we perceive and interpret things we see differently from each other because we all have different opinions about everything. If i showed two people two paintings, person A may favor the first painting while person B may favor the second. They're both seeing the same two paintings, but because they interpret them in different ways (because they've lead different lives, have different experiences, have a different chemical makeup in their brain, etc.) they chose opposite one another. However, this idea shouldn't make us skeptical of our knowledge. Perception and interpretation both help us form opinions of things. They don't let us form fact, therefore perceiving and interpreting shouldn't be considered gaining knowledge in the sense of factual things. The only reason we could be skeptical of our perceptions or interpretations is if we're talking about the knowledge of ourselves and even then I don't think it's really necessary considering a person will know themselves better than anybody else will.
Reply
Gabriella Lopez
11/18/2016 06:57:45 pm
I agree with Locke that our perceptions vary even though we all view the same thing. As mentioned in class, no one can objectively state that the sky is blue. The color of the sky is subjective due to the various perceptions of it. The only thing objective in this situation is that we are all looking upwards to view the sky. To continue, I do as well believe we should be more skeptical of the knowledge we have. I agree with Locke as he believed we gain knowledge through experience. Not everyone lives the same experiences throughout their lifetime, resulting in millions of different perspectives of the attained knowledge (ultimately making this a subjective matter). Is knowledge really knowledge if it is subjective? Overall, I think we should approach our subjective knowledge with more skepticism. We should not so heavily rely on something that cannot be perceived as objective, or a universal truth.
Reply
Parizaad Mohammadi
11/19/2016 12:06:16 pm
I don't believe that instinctual understanding should be considered knowledge. More often than not a person doesn't make mistakes when their following instincts like eating and walking. Where as when following knowledge such as basic math or reading can be interpreted wrong and led to mistakes easily. When we start eating solid foods no one teaches us how to chew the instinct is just there. Instincts shouldn't be counted as knowledge because no one teaches us how to do those certain things, instead we just do them without needing to think as we get older.
Reply
Corbin N.
11/20/2016 06:26:02 am
I would have to agree with Locke in his notion that we all see the same object, but perceive it differently. There are multiple instances in life where one object can be interpreted in multiple ways, such as the famous "Rabbit or Duck" optical illusion. However, in the applications of real life, these perceptions hold more of an impact. Say, for example, there are two people: one who is loved by dogs, and one that got bitten by a dog when they were young. More than likely, the person who got bitten would understand dogs to be ferocious beasts, while the other person would firmly state that dogs are kind hearted companions. Both of the people would have no understanding of what the other feels about dogs, as they don't share the same experiences that made them this way. Therefore, even though the two are looking at the same object, or animal in this case, they cannot see eye to eye.
Reply
Michelle Mazzucca
11/20/2016 07:48:23 am
A. I believe Locke is right that we all see the same objects but perceive and interpret them differently. People have favorite colors based on the colors that they like the most. For example, I like the color blue but someone else might say they hate the color blue. But how do I know that we both see the color blue the same way? We both see the color, but my perspective could be different from theirs. Humans should be more skeptical about our knowledge. That does not necessarily mean that one person is right and the other person is wrong, but you could question these ideas. Questioning these ideas would help us understand the opposite perspectives.
Reply
Max Lowrey
11/20/2016 11:24:49 am
A. Yes, it has been scientifically proven that the color red I see may not be the same red you see (this is especially the case for people with sensory problems.) The fact that we recognize this anomaly of the human mind is proof of our knowledge. We may not be sure of much, but we can safely assume that everyone's interpretations of one thing are to be different- except for things that can be scientifically proven. Even those things, however, are just interpretations.... Can we believe anything?
Reply
Sofia Fernandes
11/20/2016 02:43:50 pm
B. I think that instinct should be considered a form of knowledge because over time, an individual’s instinctual thoughts and actions develop and change. A good example of this is the vegetarian lifestyle. Many people say that humans are instinctually meant to hunt and eat meat, but others choose to not eat it. After building a strong, passionate, and morality-based reasoning for being a vegetarian, people instantly and subconsciously spit out meat if they eat it by accident. I know from personal experience that if I accidentally eat meat, I don’t even for a split second consider swallowing it or even think about it for that matter. My body automatically spits it out because it is something that had been engraved into my brain through experiences throughout my life and the emotions and passions that stuck with me from those experiences. This shows that instinct should be considered a form of knowledge because a person’s subconscious actions may be based off of extremely influential past experiences or passionate beliefs.
Reply
Sofia Fernandes
11/20/2016 02:51:24 pm
I thought of another example; people have different fears based off of their experiences, and those fears cause them to act instinctually. For example, two different people may see a big dog approaching them. One of the people may automatically go to play with it and pet it, while the other person may automatically hide or sprint away without a second thought. This would indicate that they each had different past experiences with big dogs, and therefore reacted differently to the dog at first thought.
Reply
Will Weaver
11/20/2016 04:04:55 pm
I do believe that out instinct should be a form of knowledge because out instinct is developed through our experiences and prior knowledge. The things we learn throughout out lives become a part of us and create the people who we are and who we are translates into out instincts and what we believe in. I also think instinct seperates us as individuals. Instinct just like knowledge is gained through our evey day lives and make up who we are aa individuals
Reply
Adam Fioretti
11/20/2016 05:49:05 pm
B. I think that being born with a "clean slate" is factual. Although there really isn't any way of proving both arguments I feel that when children are born or really any living creature they use there instincts to learn and adapt to life. For instance, babies whether human or not and is a mammal will always know where to reach for the mothers milk. Babies don't know that, its just engraved in their DNA therefore making it part of their instincts. Instincts lead to the learning of knowledge but instincts shouldn't be classified as knowledge in my opinion. As you live you acquire knowledge. The saying "respect your elders" is a result of that because they know best and have lived through most of your experiences just maybe in modified ways due to the constant change in technology and other things.
Reply
Meghan Pawlak
11/20/2016 07:27:17 pm
Locke is correct in that we all see the same thing just in different ways, example Sara and I are eating a banana however Sara does not like the taste even though I do. Whether we like the taste or not we are still eating a banana which answers the question of skepticism and that we both know thats a banana we just don't find the taste the same way. I don't think instinct is a form of knowledge because it's our naturally way of responding, formed from evolution. He believes that humans have the capability of doing certain things just we need certain things done for us.
Reply
Kaitlyn Viola
11/20/2016 07:44:11 pm
I believe that Locke is correct in his belief that we all see the same objects, but interpret them slightly differently. I believe we can often interpret things differently based off of our past experiences. I also believe some may see things in a way that others do not because of differing points of view. The diversity of humankind sparks from things like difference in interpretation. This is how we differ in taste of music, poetry, art, etc. This should make us skeptical of our knowledge, not in the sense of doubting our intelligence, but keeping an open mind to the things around us.
Reply
phoebe carr
11/20/2016 08:19:18 pm
I definitely think Locke is right that we all see the same things but perceive them differently. Not trusting the senses (like Descartes) is not an option for humans as all we know is what we see, and we can all generally agree that a t-shirt is a t-shirt or anything else of that nature. The difference between knowing and perceiving is that someone may like that t-shirt and someone else may not. People are incredibly different in tastes, opinions, and the general way we understand the world according to our dispositions. What people do not differ in is categorizing things, because language will always bind things to their titles, no matter how we understand them.
Reply
Jennifer Spinelli
11/20/2016 08:50:47 pm
I think Locke is correct in saying that we each perceive things differently. For example, it's scientifically proven that we see colors differently. Not only that, but people's minds work differently too. I know a guy who sees sound, so he experiences things very differently from me. I think this should make us more skeptical. Like, if a friend and I disagree on what color something is, it makes me wonder, "Well if it's not turquoise, then what the hell do they see it as?" And it defenitely makes me want to physically see what they see.
Reply
Emma Vollmuth
11/21/2016 04:04:04 am
A.) I do believe that we all see the same thing but perceive it differently. There is no way that when everyone in the entire world sees something, we are all seeing the same thing. I believe, we are all seeing the same physical object, but that what we think it is and how we see it, is completely different. This should make us more skeptical of our knowledge, because how do we know if what were actually seeing is what were actually seeing. How do we know whos perception is correct, if there is even a correct perception.
Reply
Edith Torres
11/21/2016 04:22:03 am
I do not agree with the statement that instinct is a form of knowledge. When we do things like eating and moving we do not know much about what we are doing in the first place. Your body will make you want to do anything that is an instinct even if you'd rather not do it. This makes an instinct something that is built in you and not learned. Instead you subconsciously have the ability to complete these sorts of actions known as instincts. This would mean Locke's "blank slate" theory is valid.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
11/21/2016 04:31:43 am
Locke's theory of the mind being a "blank slate" is a great idea. The reasoning behind this is that when you are born, you are born neutral or a "blank slate".Unlike some religons which say everyone is born naturally good this theory tells you that only experiences and your perception will gain you knowledge. Now some people believe that instincts should be included as a form of knowledge, which does make some sense but falls flat. The reasoning is that knowledge is things you don't already have and you must learn it while instincts is pre-packaged with you. What this means is that you can never learn how to eat since you would automatically know how to do it.
Reply
Dahlia Mozino
11/21/2016 05:26:30 pm
Instinct should barely be considered a form of knowledge. To move off of instinct is to have moved without thinking about it at all. That is what makes instinct instinct. Yeah, we know that eating is good from the get go, but that's only because when we're hungry our stomach region begins to hurt. Our baby minds think "Hmm, if my abdominal region is hurting from the inside, maybe we should get something inside there to make it feel better!". Either that or the parents feed the kid and the kid learns that food is good from that experience. Instinct is there for when our bodies cannot think, and when they can think, instinct is kind of intrusive.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
11/22/2016 06:42:47 pm
B. Locke's theory of the mind as a "blank slate" ignores our instinctual understanding of moving, eating, etc. I don't think that our instincts count as knowledge simply because of my understanding of what an instinct is. To me, the instincts that we are born with are part of the "blank slate". It is the knowledge that we acquire from life and its experiences that shape us, not our human nature. There is no influence to our natural instincts, which is why I don't consider them knowledge.
Reply
Young Chen
11/23/2016 05:18:28 am
I believe that our instincts are counted as knowledge because of our instincts is given to us by what we have experienced. An example would be you encountering a new problem that you have never experienced and your instincts give you decisions based off what you have already experienced. So I believe the quote " go with your gut feeling", means mostly go with you instinct because it will give you the decision based on your past solutions to similar, but not completely the same as the current one.
Reply
Paige Davis
11/23/2016 05:19:17 am
A. I think Locke is completely correct that we all see the same things but we all have different perceptions of them. Everybody might be looking at the same shirt but it could look different to a lot of different people. I think it should make us more skeptical of our knowledge because the way we see things and the things we think we know may not be the way it actually is
Reply
Bella Glidden
11/28/2016 08:21:44 pm
A. I agree that we all see things the same way but perceive and interpret them differently them differently. The quote beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a perfect example for this. Someone might think a person is beautiful while others may not agree. People have preferences for what they like and it may change how they feel about it. Some love how fall trees look while other may not and only like green leaves. Neither of them are wrong they just look things differently. This shouldn't make us skeptical of our knowledge because they way we see things has nothing to do with how we think about it. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean your knowledge is wrong because there is no right way to look at things.
Reply
Emily Clarke
11/29/2016 04:02:39 am
I believe Locke is wrong when he refers to the mind as a "blank slate", gradually acquiring knowledge. There are a few huge things that disprove this. How would we know how to breathe? We don't learn how to breathe, we are born and instantly start breathing. Moving as well is something that is not learned that we do on our own. Therefore, I believe Locke is incorrect in saying that the mind is totally empty when we are born.
Reply
Holly Braverman
1/7/2017 01:03:49 pm
Question A:
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |