THE EMPIRICISM OF LOCKE, BERKELEY AND HUME: SIMILARITIES AND THE

WEAKEST EMPIRICIST VIEW/POSITION.

Empiricism is one of the ways through which an individual can gain knowledge about

or on a certain subject in this life. Empiricism basically has to do with gaining of knowledge

through one's senses. It stresses the power of a posteriori reasoning (the reasoning from

observation or experience) to get some substantial truths about this very world. Empiricists are

the people who believe we can gain knowledge only through the senses. Some of these people

who have taken this idea of through the past centuries are philosophers like John Locke, Bishop

George Berkeley and David Hume. We read about the works of these great people because they

advocated for sensory knowledge being the only way of gaining knowledge or certainty on any

subject in the world. What we know are primarily based on our five senses as humans. Can one

still know with at least one sense experience? The answer is YES. The knowledge gained from

smelling are mostly done by our noses which is just fine because we have still been able to gain

knowledge with the nose as part of our senses. Empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs)

arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.

              John Locke was an English philosopher and physician who was renowned as the "Father

of Classical Liberalism" and was one of the most prominent Enlightenment theorists. Like any

empiricist, Locke believed that experience is the ultimate source of knowledge. However, he

believes that some sources of information can only be discovered through reason, and that this

knowledge is restricted by experience, impacted by incorrect ideas, and even by language itself.
Locke set out to analyze the human mind and its acquisition of knowledge in his most famous

book, Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

John Locke as an empiricist believes that the mind is a tabular rasa, which means that the mind is

like a plain sheet and it knows nothing from birth. Locke denies the contention that ideas are

innate as claimed by the Rationalists. Locke from the on set rejects Innatism (the principle that

says we are born with if not all, some certain ideas). He based his argument on the universality of

the innatism, thus, it is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time. If such a

proposition were to be true, these ideas should then be able to be perceived by every person and

not some of us. Locke added that babies or mentally impaired do not exhibit the very knowledge

of right and wrong and that negates innatists idea that ideas are known universally. 

               Bishop Berkeley as an empirical idealist philosopher. He believes that what we come to

know is based on the conscious mind and its ideas. Everything that exist somehow depends on

the individual perceiving it. Ideas from human knowledge are imprinted on the human senses,

perceived by attending one's own emotions and mental activities or formed out of the ideas two

types with the help of imagination or memories. Berkeley claims that there is no differentiation

between primary and secondary qualities: both exist solely as mental concepts (e.g. there is no

extension without colour). He criticizes Locke's taxonomy of primary and secondary colors,

calling it "abstract in its purest form." Such a level of abstraction, he claims, is abstruse and

incomprehensible to educated people, mentally impaired people, and children. According to

Berkeley, the notion that human spirit is capable of forming abstract concepts is the source of all

philosophical misunderstandings and errors. 

However, we all know that what we call things are nothing more than a collection of thoughts.

As a result, there is no problem. However, concepts must be thought in order to exist. As a result,

ESSE EST PERCIPI which means "to be perceived is to be perceived." To put it another way, if

something can't be seen, it doesn't exist. He goes on to say that the physical world exists because

of our perceptions of it. That is, for any entity in the physical universe to exist, it must be

perceived by a supreme deity.

                   Another empiricism philosopher, David Hume, divided understanding into two types.

That is, the relationship between thoughts and facts. The former implies truths that are a priori

and unaffected by experience. Geometry is included, as are propositions that are either intuitively

true or demonstratively wrong. 3x5 = half of 30 is a proposition that can only be discovered by

reasoning and not by experience. The latter, on the other hand, refers to knowledge gained solely

via experience. He divides them further into seen and undetected facts. Talking of David Hume's

empiricism, as one of the greatest empiricists to ever live, believed that, the principle of causality

is mainly known through experience. He added that some certain things we believe is ultimately

traceable to experience. He goes on to say that, even with the perspective of the past, humanity

cannot dictate future events because thoughts of the past are limited, compared to the

possibilities for the future.

In view of what have been said above, it can be clearly seen as crystal that, these three

philosophers empiricists for the obvious reason that they all believe that sense experience is the

ultimate, if not the only reason we gain knowledge.

                  In this paper, more light is going to be thrown on some of the similarities that these

philosophers have in common in their empiricism (as the answer to QUESTION A) and explore

the weakest empiricism (QUESTION B).

               To start with, all these three empiricists express their skepticism of innate concepts.

Locke argues that the mind is blank at birth, with no thoughts or information. John Locke as an

empiricist accepts that the intellect may be a tabular rasa, which implies that the mind is like a

plain sheet and it knows nothing from birth. Locke denies the dispute that thoughts are natural as

claimed by the Rationalists. Locke from the on set rejects Innatism (the guideline that says we

are born with on the off chance that not all, a few certain thoughts). Berkeley argues that our

knowledge is made up of notions about the physical world that have been imprinted on our

minds but derived from sensory experience. This is accomplished through perception. Hume also

rejects innate notions, claiming that knowledge can only be derived from experience through

cause and effect. That knowing something without any experience will take a very bright

individual. 

               Moreover, these philosophers believe that reason is an unreliable and inadequate route

to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience. Basically, what the

aforementioned statement is trying to pose is that, one cannot rely on his or her reason to gain

knowledge because that would probably render his or her knowledge baseless unless that reason

is solidly backed by sense experience. 

               Lastly, the empiricists believe that, the only source of genuine knowledge is sense

experience. Empiricism is the proposal that there's no a priori supernatural information and all

concepts are inferred from at least any of the five senses through  experience. Observation

therefore entails that there's no information unless there's observational information.

Experimentation in itself involves no particular metaphysics. Knowledge gained through

observation is the view that all information of the world is based on experience. Put agreeing to

which the elemental source of information of the world is reason, not encounter. These two

positions have been in dispute with each other since relic. Realism for occasion has been

doubtful to the position of experimentation against a priori information. Faultfinders of

information experimentation produce putative cases of a priori information. Empiricists bargain

with these cases in a few ways, claiming either that the articulation in address cannot be known a

priori, since it is mysterious through and through or comprehensible but as it were through

involvement, or that that the articulation does not truly give information of the world. Another

common belief shared by these three individuals is the existence of a superior entity (God).

To answer Question B, I would to declare that George Berkeley's empiricism is the weakest for

me. What happens to be when we take a break or sleep while taking a rest? Does it take after that

anytime I rest, I am non-existent? Which I seem exist and not exist any time I’m wakeful and

snoozing individually? Once more, if existence is unexpected on discernment, it must take after

that there's somebody predominant or supernaturally who is seeing all subjects and occasions

within the physical world to legitimize our presence? Right! Who at that point is seeing such

Incomparable Being? That's , who sees the perceiver? With some of the doubts being said

earlier , in any case, one may effectively evaluate the uncertainty within the contention of
Berkeley. He denies the presence of matter by dwelling on perception. That's , as it were what

we are ready to see is that which exists. This explanation delineates a parcel of inconsistency

since, the unimportant reason I’m not accessible at a specific put in time does not approve or

intimate the non-existence of occasions at that specific put.