Soul - Essay Example

Soul It is very amusing on the values and beliefs that people have regarding life. There are many theories that explain life and what makes it good. Similarly, many people disagree about the existence of God/gods and their role in the wellbeing of human beings. Moreover, people have diversified opinion regarding the role of rationality on individuals being. Because of this, those who have an interest to find the source of knowledge that guides souls have developed different theories to explain the same. Some of the theorists for this subject are Descartes who discussed mediation in describing the role of God in determining ones morality, Locke also inquired about human understanding. Therefore, these theorists have different and diverse assumption regarding the source of human knowledge as well as the role of gods on individuals. Because of their divergent opinions, one may also ask on what shapes human behaviors. What is the source of human knowledge? In addition, is God innate? First, it is crucial to shed light on one of the important factors that people differ, and that is the source of knowledge for souls. Different theories explain the sources of knowledge and they vary relatively to a certain extent making it hard to believe their assumptions. For instance, Descartes has his assumptions regarding their source of knowledge just like Locke’s who also believes there are certain aspects that have to be present in an individual to gain knowledge about his or her environment (Wilson 8). Because of the diversified perception and beliefs, one has to decide for himself or herself on the best way to define the source of knowledge. Similarly, they agree to some point on ways soul acquire knowledge that guides them in their daily. Descartes tried to find the source of his knowledge in his first meditation by sitting alone next to the fire to minimize interaction and other aspects that could enable him gathers more knowledge (Flage 94). His key mission was to shed what he already knew and got new knowledge. Through this, it is evident that people gain knowledge through their interaction with the environment. He concludes by noting that knowledge comes from ones senses, which sometimes deceives (Walmsley 68). Therefore, one has to figure out the option available since not all that we get from the senses are worth absorbing. Similarly, Lockes also inquired on the human understanding and the limits to their sources of knowledge. In his inquiry, he was more interested in the difference between opinion and knowledge and avoid the tough question regarding the body problems (Walmsley 71). Through the inquiry, it is evident that most philosophers are disturbed by the source of human knowledge and what inspires and vary in their assumptions. Although the two philosophers are interested in understanding the source of knowledge, one rejects another’s assumptions that human are born with rational knowledge. For instance, Locks rejected the ideas of Descartes that knowledge or ideas are innate (Buckle 320). In his argument, Locke’s believes that people are born with a blank tablet making them lack even simple understanding (Walmsley 71). Through this argument, one may wonder how people come to acquire knowledge that help them in their day to day life and what makes their soul different from other animals. Despite many philosophers arguing that people develop and acquire knowledge through their interaction with the environment, it does not hold water in some scenarios. For instance, many people do not have knowledge about their environment even after interacting. Similarly, there are many people, mostly the illiterate, who do not know the important thing they are expected to know. This argument questions the notion that knowledge is acquired through interaction with the social environment. It also rejects Locke’s ideas that knowledge is gathered after one is born. Hence, one can agree with the argument of Descartes that people’s senses are the source of knowledge since they get to see and determine what they believe is good for them. It does not matter the extent in which an individual interacts but the functionality of his or her senses is what determines (Flage 94). Many people do not or have little knowledge about the determinants of their moral behaviors. Many believe that there are principles to follow to live to the expected standards and adhere to the rules. To some, God shapes the human morality, and they believe he exists with them for guidance. This argument is best explained in the works of Locke’s and Descartes. Descartes believes that everything happens for the purpose, and God is innate (Cottingham 260). Hence, he believes that he controls everything that human beings do. According to his arguments, God lives with people and offers guidelines for their daily actions and activities. On the other hand, Locke’s believes God is not innate, and his presence is only visible through his creation (Brubaker 220). Through the argument, he believes he is through with his duties and no longer keeps in the affairs of beings since they have developed social institutions that govern their morality. Because of their argument, they believe God plays different roles in humanity, and he is the one who created them into being (Hume 225). Following the above argument, one may ask many questions about the determinants of good and evil souls, if it is true that God is innate. Individuals are controlled by the knowledge and ideas they have obtained from their interaction with the environment that gives them reflections and experience to go about their daily duties. It is from this assumption that Locks argues that God is innate; otherwise, all men would have ideas about him. Because of this, people have diverse principles that they believe and the diversity is because of Gods innate nature (Brubaker 220). The invisibility of God makes humanity to lack order since they need someone to keep them in order to achieve the goals. On the other side, Descartes comes to question the nature of God from the errors that people commit (Cottingham 260). For instance, in Mediation IV and V, he questions the existence of God because he ought, not to have left human to do some faults that are against his wish (Buckle 320). Through this, Descartes comes to question his earlier stand that God is innate and lives with humanity, contrary to the belief of Locke’s. Hence, it all varies depending on the beliefs of the individual and it confirms the reason there are different denominations in the world. It is because they all have various notions regarding the existence of God and what he does to control the conducts of humanity. In conclusion, it is evident from the assumptions that Descartes and Locks have that knowledge come from different sources and God plays a significant role in individuals although he is innate. Knowledge comes from the senses that are stimulated by the environment and reflections that people have. Because of this notion, some people who do not reflect, and do not use their senses lacks the knowledge about their environment because of their inability to synthesize whatever they see. Similarly, interacting with the environment without reflecting the meaning of what one sees does not make individual gain knowledge of them. It calls for reflection of the visible as both philosophers argue. Lastly, God exists and he is the creator of the beings. However, he does not exist with individual making them commit errors on issues beyond their knowledge. The morality of individuals is not shaped by the fear of God, but by the experiences that people go through after committing such mistakes. Works Cited Brubaker, Stanley C. "Coming Into Ones Own: John Lockes Theory Of Property, God, And Politics." Review Of Politics 74.2 (2012): 207-232 Buckle, Stephen. "Descartes, Plato And The Cave." Philosophy 82.2 (2007): 301-337 Cottingham, John. "II-Descartes And Darwin: Reflections On The Sixth Meditation." Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 87.1 (2013): 259-277 David. An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Flage, Daniel E.1. "Descartes And The Real Distinction Between Mind And Body." Review Of Metaphysics 68.1 (2014): 93-106 Walmsley, Jonathan. "Sydenham And The Development Of Lockes Natural Philosophy." British Journal For The History Of Philosophy 16.1 (2008): 65-83. Wilson, Catherine. Descartes meditations: an introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Read More