Nigeer Yasen Zuli

2009202132
Descartes vs. Locke on external world

Rene Descartes and John Locke display very different positions in order to avoid
external world skepticism .The arguments that Descartes gives to show the error of
different skeptical scenarios are based on the belief that god is not a deceiver;
whereas Locke sees truthfulness of our sensory experiences as the sole proof of the
existence of the external world .All these arguments that are bestowed by this two
great philosophers to avoid external world skepticism have great impact on their
views about reliability of sense perception and therefore their overall epistemological
projects.

To begin with ,until the 6th meditation ,Descartes mainly tries to prove existence of
his own and the existence of god’s .In 6th meditations Descartes tries to prove
existence of external/material world .Until this point the mediator knows that there is
an external world with at least one object-God .However stating that external world
exists doesn’t mean that we are perceiving them since ,according to Descartes ,we
are immediately aware of not external objects ,but ideas .In other word ,what we are
perceiving is ideas .Therefore the existence of external /material world stays still in
doubt.

Descartes follows two steps to prove the existence of external world .Initially ,he
gives a familiar argument which is developed upon the idea of involuntariness in 3rd
meditation .Argument goes like this ;
i)Some sensations are caused in me as oppose to my will.
ii)Thus ,there must be something that external to me causes these sensations
iii)There is something external to me exists.
Descartes continues his argument by saying that there is a possibility that these
ideas can be produced by some other faculty, which is not fully known to me ,without
any help from the external objects as if those ideas that are produced in my dreams
.Is that mean Descartes refute his own argument ?He obviously implies that my ideas
are not generated by external things but rather generated by a process which is like
those generating my dreams .This skeptical scenario causes the failure of the former
argument since it attacks the reliability of argument by claiming that sensory ideas
might be caused by subconscious faculty of my mind .However ,Descartes gives
further support to this argument continuing chapters of sixth meditation .He thinks
that this problem can not be solved by resources that is provided by our experiments
;but rather solved by innate ideas .Here we need to remember the idea of body and
soul duality that Descartes brings up before .According to him soul has completely
different essence from the body and its essence is pure thought .It follows from that
There can be nothing in my mind ‘of which I am unaware’ .Thus ,the argument can be
transformed like this :
If some sensations caused in my mind ,then I have to aware of them .Since I am not
aware of them ,then these sensations must be caused something external to my
mind.

After this first stage ,Descartes tries to prove material existence of the external
objects .Descartes believes that there are three possible causes that initiate our
sensations.
i)God
ii)some other thing
iii)material things
Descartes eliminates first 2 options on the bases of God is not a deceiver .Descartes
states it like this:
‘But since God is not a deceiver ,it is quite clear that he does not transmit this ideas
either directly from himself ,or indirectly ,via some creature…For god has given me
source for these ideas ;on the contrary, he has given me that they are produced by
corporeal things .It follows that corporeal things exist.’ (Med 6,At 7:79-80)

This passage arises some questions .First of all he said they are produced by
corporeal things ,but this doesn’t confirm that these corporeal things are perceived
clearly and distinctly .Descartes states repeatedly that ‘my nature is such that so long
as I perceive something very clearly and distinctly I cannot but believe it to be true’
(Med. 5, AT 7:69; cf. 3:64)And secondly ,This passage suggest that in order to be
sure about the existence of external/corporeal world ,I need divine guarantee
.However ,Descartes admitted himself that the arguments which are given to prove
the existence of external world are not as solid as the arguments which concern the
knowledge of our own and the knowledge of God .In any way ,he doesn’t provide us
with no further explanation why he sees divine guarantee as strong proof for
existence of external world. The same issue brought by Descartes in fourth
meditation when he discusses theodicy .He Demonstrates divine guarantee as a
necessary factor in order to believe accuracy of clear and distinct perception .He
asserts that all perfect god can not let us to be in error about what we clearly and
distinctly perceive .Then the argument can be transformed like this :
i)There is a God who is not a deceiver.
ii)This non-deceiving God cannot let me to be in error in such cases in which I
haven’t been provided by any faculty to figure out whether my ideas are true or not.
iii)Therefore ,I am not in error in such cases in which I haven’t been provided by any
faculty to figure out whether my ideas are true or not.
This is very parallel to prima facia argument which he gives in fourth meditation .He
primarily accept that god is not a deceiver .And therefore it is impossible that there is
any inaccuracy in my opinions which can not be corrected by some other faculty that
is given by God.He uses god’s nature of benevolence to infer that he wouldn’t donate
us with such an imperfect nature in which we couldn’t even use our reasoning
properly to see we are going wrong.
When it comes to prove that we are not dreaming, he offers a quite natural solution
.He claims that one does not connect his dreams via memory with other life actions
,but he does connect his real life experiences via memory with other life actions
.However ,one can clearly and distinctly see when and where his waking experiences
come from ,and he can connect his perceptions of these experiences with his life
without a break .Therefore ,it is certain that one encounters with these experiences
when he is awake .He tries to support his argument with same solution that he
offered to prove the existence of external material world .Namely ,he said that one
can ask his senses ,his memory and his intellect to check them and he will see they
are not conflicting with each other .In addition ,God is not a deceiver .Then these
experiences must come to me while I am awake .Therefore I am not dreaming.
How Descartes relate his ideas about external world skepticism to his overall
epistemological work and reliability of sense perception? In order to answer this
question we need to look at Descartes’ epistemology a little bit .He describe
knowledge in terms of doubt .According to him certainty is opposite of doubt .If my
certainty enhances ,my doubt will diminish .He tries to build his epistemology on the
bases oh absolute certainty .Therefore he puts the idea ‘I think ,therefore I am’ since
thinking is the most certain evidence for existing .I am doubting about my existence
and doubting is the very obvious phenomena that shows the existence of my own
.Even the evil demon can not deceive me about my existence since I am doubting my
existence .In order to be deceived I have to be exist first .Cogito sum is a perfect
example of how Descartes seeks for unshakable truths upon which he can built his
Philosophy safely .Certainty has a crucial epistemic character for Descartes .He
states that: ‘During the moment of certainty ,It is as It my perception is guided by a
great light in the intellect’. It shows that Justification must be formed in terms of
unshakable truths .And we are actually searching for absolute certainty while we are
searching for knowledge .That is why avoid the skepticism is very important for
Descartes .He seeks for some indefeasible types of knowledge and Therefore
knowledge should be unable to being destroyed .It should be so strong ,so nobody
can never shake it. In other word, there must be no way for us to doubt .In order to
attain absolute ,unshakable true beliefs one should avoid skepticism and al sort of
evil demon scenarios .Descartes believes he already has achieved his goal when he
providing proofs for existence of self and existence of god. Then ,the main problem is
how can we have attain so certain and unshakable sort of knowledge when it comes
to external corporeal world .For doing so, We initially must be certain about the
reliability of our sense perception .And according to Descartes ,we can be establish
the reliability of sense perception on the basis of the fact that god is not a deceiver
and he is benevolent. Therefore he wouldn’t give us totally incorrect faculties through
which we can not even distinguish whether I am perceiving this paper or not. This
would be against very nature of God .In the next step ,he gives a bunch of argument
to prove the existence of external corporeal world .All of them based upon the fact
that God is not deceiver ,and whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive must be true.
Locke ,on the other hand ,gives completely different arguments to defeat external
world skepticism .His strategy to prove the existence of external world has two parts.
First of all, he admits that one can not be as certain as the existence of external
things as one can of his own .Locke asserts that sensory ideas are caused by
external material things ;otherwise we would have any control over them .What he
means by saying that is we don’t have control over external objects since whether we
will or not they evoke certain ideas in our mind .Therefore they couldn’t be caused by
us .Second point that Locke makes to show the existence of external world is that
different external objects have a tendency to fit together. Hence ,my senses must be
reliable .For example ,when you reach and touch an apple ,other than seeing it ,you
will perceive ,by touching ,a shape that matches the object you see before. Also ,if
you write down a sentence and show other people ,they will see the same sentence
as if you do .Then it follows that your perceptions must be caused by external objects
,free from your mind. In order to defeat dream argument ,he says that one can only
know the existence of an external object when that object makes itself perceived by
him .Having the idea of that thing in our mind makes that thing real. Since we
perceive a real thing ,then we are not in a dream.
How these proofs related to Locke’s epistemology? In order to respond this ,we
need to look at Locke’s ideas about perception .According to Locke ideas are the
mental objects that we immediately aware of. There are two sources from which all of
our ideas come :
i)sensations
 ii)reflection (One’s innate observation of his mental processes)
An external object cause certain ideas that represents that object. Then we perceive
that idea which resembles that object .Locke has really strange ideas about
properties of external objects .He claims that only the spatial properties that a certain
object has resembles to the object .Other qualities that an external object has either
not really in that object; or exists as dispositions of that object .For example :
‘redness’ is not a property that an apple has ,rather an apple has the power to cause
that sensation in me .He separates qualities into two group : primary qualities such as
spatial properties ,mathematical properties ,and secondary qualities like colour ,teste
etc..
He states that all our knowledge founded on experience and from experience
knowledge drives itself .According to him our observations comes from either
external objects or ,as he puts in ,‘internal operations of mind’. And these two are the
main elements that form knowledge .He famously sees mind as blank sheet which is
later filled by our experiences.
‘Let us then suppose the mind to be ,as we say, white paper ,void of all characters
,without any ideas .How comes it to be furnished?...To this I answer ,in one word
,from experience :In that all of our knowledge is founded’
Ideas ,for Locke ,are not capable of being false. None of them is false. For example
,the idea of centaur has no falsehood in it. They passes through our judgement and
our judgement makes that true or false by affirming or denying them .He considers
that knowledge of our existence comes from our intuitions and knowledge of god
comes from reason ,because ‘through reason the existence of god made known to
us’ .And knowledge of external thing ,we can only obtain via sensations.(Book 4)
Receiving ideas from external things makes us know that certain thing exists a
certain time ,in a certain place external to us and this causes the idea of that thing in
our minds .For example I am writing this paper my it is affecting my mind .The ideas
of paper produced in my mind has certain qualities ,which is caused by the object
and I name this quality as ‘whiteness’. And that is the reason for me to believe that
certain quality really exists and it has an separate existence from my mind .This is the
greatest assure that I can have and my mental faculties can obtain .The data that
come from my eyes is the only appropriate judge of that particular thing .And I have
my reason to rely on; hence ,I can not doubt any more .I see black and white while I
am writing and something exists external to me lead to these sensations in me
.Locke puts this as : ‘…which is a certainty as great as human nature is capable of,
concerning the existence of any thing...’no one can be so skeptical about the
existence of external things which he sees ,or feels etc…A skeptic can not doubt
about whether or not I am saying things that are contrary to his ideas since he can
not be sure .However ,I can be confident about my faculties can not deceive me
since I know that God give me guarantee of the existence of things without me .Thus
I have to be sure about my faculties do not deceive me since this is the biggest
assurance that I can have concerning the existence of external world.
In addition ,Locke suggests that sensations are not produced by our sense organs
,but by external objects .Imagine a blind man who is blind from the bith .He can not
have ideas about the visual properties of a particular object that perfectly fits the real
object since ,for him ,there is no external objects that produce a certain idea in his
mind .Our sense organs can not cause this ideas since if they do so then eyes of
blind man or eyes of a man in the dark can generate light or colors .Therefore ,there
is no possibility to think that they are produced by our sense organs .However ,what
about the ideas that come from our memories ?They are produced in our minds even
if they are not produced by immediate perception of external objects ?Locke
distinguish our memory recalls from the actual perception in two ways. He says they
differ in the way thet they manifest themselves. Let’s think about the pleasure that
arise when you are eating chocolate .If the memory and sensation was same thing
,then the power of pleasure they bring would be same .Whereas I am having more
pleasure while I am actually eating chocolate .And also ,I can not avoid the pleasure
when I am having chocolate ,but I can avoid the pleasure which comes to my mind
when I am thinking that I am eating chocolate .It is enough for me not to think about it
to avoid the pleasure .In other word ,I can stop memories but ,I can not stop
experiences. Furthermore ,I am not suffering from the pain when I am thinking about
the terrible headache that I had last night. Thinking about pain doesn’t disturb me at
all .Therefore ,my memories must be distinct from my experiences.
The last point I would like to make about Locke can be a good response to skeptics
.According to Locke ,someone who is doubt about external things ,let’s say fire ,can
be persuaded simply putting his hand into fire .If that heat is just a fancy ,then the
pain it causes wouldn’t be so bad .The pain he is having would be a fancy or just an
idea, too.
All these two thinkers give really good arguments to prove the existence of external
material world and to avoid skepticism. However ,in my opinion ,the methodology that
Locke uses is better than the Descartes’ .To begin with Descartes kind of fail when
he tries to suggest the fallacy of dream argument. For one thing, one can dreams
about events that is really fits in his previous experiences. Then what Descartes
suggest contrary to dream argument actually turns ut to be false. For example ,I had
a really vivid dream couple of days ago which totally corresponds past experiences
that i had. Then how do I suppose to know that I am not dreaming if I can linked my
dreams to my earlier experiences.
Another objection that can be made about Descartes is that why he shows divine
supervision as a necessary condition to us to know that external world exists and we
are not dreaming? Doesn’t he undermining ,by saying that God is not deceiver ,the
ideas of those who doesn’t believe in God. For an atheist this particular proof that
Descartes gave doesn’t make any sense. He earlier said that God doesn’t give us
such imperfect faculties via which we don’t even realize we are doing wrong.
According to him ,this idea rejects that God is al benevolent and all just .Whereas; for
those who doesn’t believe God or his benevolence, this proof is not meaningful. And I
think as a philosopher who seeks for unshakable certain knowledge ,he shouldn’t
suggest a supernatural existence as the only and greatest proof of existence of
external world since something transcendent to our world wouldn’t be proof of
anything that exists in our world.
The last objection can be made again concerns dream argument .Suppose that you
are very tired and you are no capable of perceiving clearly and distinctly ,but you
think you are perceiving clearly and distinctly. We all have this kind of experiences
.For example: a student who is not sleep entire night to write a paper is not mentally
as fresh as someone who had a good night sleep .Even if that student sees and talks
with his friend through the day, his interpretation of all these experiences would be
different from others. In addition, Descartes said in fourth meditation that one
shouldn’t stop and check his every little action in order to be sure he is awake or his
perception works perfectly .This would be impossible .And human nature prone to
make mistakes .Therefore, one should accept the weakness of his nature .Then it
follows that I shouldn’t think that I am awake while making a decision ,even if I don’t
know that I am awake. I just admit that I have an imperfect nature that liable to make
mistake.
The arguments that Locke gives ,on the other hand, are better since Locke doesn’t
think that divine supervision is essential to know that the external world exist .He
thinks that from the very fact that we are perceiving some objects, we can infer that
external world exists .There would be no sensation in me if they are caused by some
external objects .Moreover ,In my opinion ,what he says against the skeptics is much
more sophisticated especially the fire example that he gives. The arguments that
Locke uses are much more simple and much more related to life and the reality that
we lives in .In addition ,the examples that he gave is very practical than Descartes.
In conclusion ,Descartes and Locke has different ideas about to prove the
reliability of our sense perceptions and to avoid external world skepticism .Their ideas
about external world skepticism closely related to their epistemological stances .Both
give really good arguments to show the unlikelihood of different skeptical views.
However, I think Locke did his job better than Descartes.

Resources:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/
John Locke, Essay concerning human understanding , ed. PH. Nidditch,Oxford
university press,1975
Fredrick Copleston,Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Leibniz volume 4,Image
book,New York,1994
Descartes, meditations from our book.