The Problem of Epistemology in John Locke’s Philosophy

Abstract

This article discusses the underlying disagreement between rationalism and empiricism regarding the source of knowledge. Rationalist philosophers, especially Descartes, claim that true knowledge originates from the mind and not from the sense, because it is related to the concept of inborn and the senses deceptive often. Rationalists argue that individuals are born with innate ideas that are true and do not depend on experience. On the other hand, empiricist philosophers, especially John Locke, maintains that knowledge originates solely from experience. According to Locke, the human mind is a blank slate at birth, and is without innate ideas, and the things we know are obtained through sensory input. Although Locke appreciates the role of the mind in processing knowledge, he believes its capacity to generate knowledge independently is limited. Locke asserts that the mind cannot create knowledge without receiving data through the senses first. According to Locke, reason is not a direct source of knowledge but works as a tool to organize and analyze information acquired from sensory experiences. In the end, he claims that although sensory experience is the basis of knowledge, the mind is crucial for creating, verifying, and applying the knowledge. It can be concluded that the mind is not the origin of knowledge, but it has an essential role in interpreting and organizing ideas. Also, it can combine simple sensory signals into more complex concepts. Therefore, it can be argued that knowledge begins with sensory inputs and is then formed and expanded by the mind. This study aims to explore John Locke's ideas about knowledge and the methods by which certain knowledge can be acquired.