Relations between Knowledge and Reality - Essay Example

Relations between Knowledge and Reality Yolton (2010) has analyzed Locke’s philosophical approach about knowledge and reality in the 4th chapter of his book, under investigation, where the author submits to state that the physical objects just carry the other objects existing in the universe, and the nature of their relation with the other objects is based upon how they are perceived. He is of the view that Locke appears to be interested in the epistemic role of relations, though he seems to be refuting the possibility of relationship between the objects. (104) Relations are relative and comparative that are exhibited on the basis of their various traits and characteristics including size, magnitude, appearance and association etc, which is based upon the word or idea depicting the personality or his characteristics. Ideas about relationships are certainly developed and predicted on the basis of the conditions they fulfill. Thus, the relationships and their concepts are dependent of the performances they make. The author also alludes to various forms of concepts described by Locke, which include action-concepts, physical concepts and moral concepts (106-107). Locke has also established the patterns of relations, where he declares cause and effect as the most important one in this regards. He has also shown the relationship between various ideas on the basis of the concepts established. He called relation between idea and thing as the real existence. (110) Locke has presented different sorts of agreements on perception about ideas, where he aims to view knowledge as unlimited in nature and scope, though knowledge of coexistence is narrow and limited one. Hence, Locke asserts the existence of knowledge on the basis of perception of agreement or disagreement between ideas, without taking into consideration the very difference in perceiving the same. (117) Locke, Law & Law of Nature Rogers (1999) has identified the moral and natural law described and discussed by John Locke in his philosophy. Moral law, according to Rogers, enjoys the central place in Locke’s political writings (Atherton, 1999:47), which can also be viewed in association with his opinion about scientific inventions and advancements. It is partly due to the very reality that scientific discoveries are also the outcome of the scientists’ curiosity for exploring the countless phenomena of nature with the help of observation and empirical estimation. Hence, God and the universe on the one hand, and natural law and scientific discoveries are interrelated according to Locke (48-49). The individuals’ activities also reflect natural laws, and parents’ affection for children is natural, while their hatred for children looks unnatural and astonishing act. Consequently, natural law lays stress upon morality for the individuals (51), and reiterates upon applying best of faculties and skills while performing an act or obligation. Locke has also sought inspiration from the Newton’s law of gravity that every object of nature acts according to the commands of natural law, and deviation from the same could invite disorder and chaos in its wake. It is therefore Locke, in his Essay, looks for seeking knowledge about the laws of universe in order to explore the realities existing all around humans. (53-54) Rogers also cites Locke’s examples regarding the affects of various objects on others, where the reaction of different objects is almost same, as hemlock takes the life of the person consuming the same. Locke has also explored relation between the law of nature and the laws of nature, where law of nature identifies the existence of God, His laws and the entities to obey the same, and laws of nature repeat their course in order to implement the law of nature. Moral Weakness by Spinoza Harris (1973) has elucidated Spinoza’s doctrine of moral weakness by making its comparison with the goodness theory articulated by renowned Greek philosopher Plato. Plato has laid stress upon seeking knowledge of good and evil, as the person aware of evil would not commit it, according to Plato. (148) Somehow, his pupil Aristotle refuted the very idea, though Spinoza has indirectly supported the same. Spinoza is determined to state that humans imitate their desires in vicious behavior, due to the very reality that they are not completely aware of the nature, scope and consequences of evil. It is partly because of the lack of people’s concentration and dedication for obtaining in-depth knowledge about evil, which drags them towards evil subsequently. However, Spinoza seeks external factors determining human behavior while performing one cat or the other. (150) Spinoza also discovers emotional appeal in a false idea or concept even its falsehood is evident and approved. Recognizing goodness and evil is not a challenging task in the eyes of Spinoza, though he suggests the very fact that appeal and attraction in the evil does not let the people to resist the charm it offers. He also rejects the possibility of imitating the desires provided it is the outcome of the free will man has been blessed with; on the contrary, moral weakness is actually the outcome of passive desires in humans. Thus, like Plato, Spinoza also declares evil as the negation of absolute reality, which paves the way towards moral weakness in humans. (151) Harris has successfully elaborated the doctrine in simple but powerful manner, which is vehemently beneficial in comprehending with Spinoza’s views about moral weakness. How God Causes Motion? Descartes, Divine Sustenance and Occasionalism Garber (1999) has elaborated the Descartes’ doctrine about God and divinity. The philosopher is of the opinion that only Creator can introduce changes in any spiritual or corporeal body, and no other person can do the same. Consequently, only divinity sustains everybody and causes motion in it. (Perebook, 1999:89) Additionally, the divinity also places (and/or preserves too) the things in one specific area or other. Descartes also strongly believes that it is only God that conserves and reproduces us along with causing motion in us. Such acts of preservation and protection actually reflect and prove Him as the Omniscient and all-Powerful. Thus, causing sustenance and preservation of the things and objects is actually the law of nature on the one hand, and expression of the divine might on the other. Descartes also views man’s existence and conservation as a divine act, without which no one can neither survive nor can make any movement altogether; the same is equally applied on souls and bodies (91-92). Garber also seeks similarities between the doctrines presented by world-famous Italian philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Rene Descartes, where he argues the very fact that though Descartes has not identified different substantial forms, yet he never denies the existence of the same as the universal phenomena. However, Descartes has alluded to fewer substantial forms than those articulated by Aquinas. (96-97) Forms, sizes, shapes and characteristics are attributed to various objects, which can be found by observing divergent traits of different things. However, in order to have complete acquaintance with the nature of an object, much more is required than mere having knowledge of the size or shape of the objects. Hence, movement of various objects and causes behind their movements also maintain imperative significance in its scope, according to Descartes. Since mind can cause movement in body, the mind and body are interdependent entities. (99) Opposition to Berkeley by Ritchie Ritchie (1967) has critically evaluated the Berkeley’s Theory of Vision in a powerful manner. The author submits to state that Berkeley had no knowledge about the intensity of opposition his theory of vision would undergo at the hands of the critics. Somehow, he had acknowledged the flaws the doctrine carried; as a result, he made few amendments in his arguments about the same. Somehow, such little changes could not abate the severity and magnitude of opposition the theory would experience with the passage of time. His predecessor philosophers viewed mind as an independent (and interdependent in Descartes’ viewpoint) entity, which belongs to one person and resides in his brain and body. However, since no single thing can exist simultaneously in two places i.e. mind cannot live in brain and body concurrently, the doctrine itself invites criticism and opposition in its wake. (Ritchie, 6-7) The author also criticizes the doctrine provided it does not explain transmission theory, as well as the affect and impact of one entity or object on the other. Ritchie also opposes Berkeley’s doctrine for applying the terminology that does not have any roots in the theories articulated by his predecessors. As a result, the readers could get confused while going through his theoretical framework, as many things appear to be novel and unique for them, and require some experienced mentor to comprehend with such terminology. References Atherton, Margaret (1999). The empiricists: critical essays on Locke, Berkeley, and Hume Critical essays on the classics Rowman & Littlefield Harris, Errol E. (1973) Salvation from despair: a Reappraisal of Spinoza's Philosophy Springer Pereboom, Derk (1999). The rationalists: critical essays on Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz Critical essays on the classics Rowman & Littlefield Ritchie, Arthur David (1967). George Berkeley: a reappraisal Manchester University Press ND Yolton, John W. (2010) Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding: a Selective Commentary on the Essay Cambridge University Press Read More