Compare empiricism and rationalism

The argument of empiricism versus rationalism, in other words one can draw on the thoughts and theories of Locke in opposition to the beliefs of Descartes. The argument between empiricism and rationalism can be broken down to the simple form of Locke’s imperialism being that all knowledge derives from the senses, against Descartes’ belief that information can be known in advance of experience through innate ideas.
Locke is considered to be the founder of British empiricism, while Descartes is considered to be the father of modern philosophy. They both have two distinct epistemic systems that all address the idea of knowledge and what it is.
Locke defined knowledge as "the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of any of our ideas". The ideas are therefore derived from our sensors that act as receptors to a given stimulus. Locke stated that the senses are the most important factor in the learning process and therefore contribute greatly toward knowledge, as the basis of his theory of perception. Unlike Descartes, Locke claimed that innate ideas were practically non-existent. He argued that we (humans) are not constituted so that we can know all, but are born with enough basic knowledge to

Descartes attacked Locke’s theory that humans learned through the senses due to the fact that to him the human senses are considered to be full of imperfections and not reliable enough to use as a source of knowledge. The main suggestion behind Descartes’ theory of though was that the main source of our ideas were ourselves, “I think therefore I am.” Furthermore many of what Descartes called innate ideas were thought by him to be of universal consent, not only God but also ideas of human morality, and intuitive knowledge.

In conclusion to Locke’s thoughts toward the senses and the importance that they carry towards learning it is obvious that Locke saw the senses as the primary source if not the only source of all knowledge as it is through those senses that humans perceive all experience.

The senses as our receptors to the outside world were however split into two categories depending on their quality of perception. These are described as the primary and the secondary qualities of the senses. Locke made a basic distinction between the two, arguing that firstly, Primary qualities are entirely inseparable from body. They are known to be primary because the senses consistently find them to be the same, in other words they are perceptions that cannot be altered by factors such as heat or light, which might, for example, affect the color which the object or stimulus could be perceived. Therefore solidity, shape, and size are all primary qualities. The Secondary qualities, in Locke's terms, are qualities of perception that could be perceived differently and are dependable on surrounding factors as well as the individual themselves. Consequently effects such as color, odor, sound, warmth, and smell are all secondary qualities. These qualities can be seen in instances when an individual may perceive differently at different times. For example water, which may appear warm to someone who is cold, might be perceived as cold to someone who is hot. Nonetheless it is clear that Locke saw the senses as the basic receptors to learning from the experiences.

On one side the Empiricism of Locke and Berkeley where the senses are explained to be the primary and most important part of the learning process as receptors of the human body. To these philosophers it was clear that the idea of innate knowledge seemed impossible how one could know something and not be aware of it seemed the most commonly asked question in challenges presented to Descartes by Locke. Nevertheless the Rationalism ideas presented by Cartesian though were also widely accepted due to the religious significance of the soul being the judging entity of the man, and the principle that God must be an innate principle of mankind. On both accounts and opposing arguments there are issues that are left unanswered or far to vaguely described; for instance Locke claims that a man cannot remember what he was thinking, it is obvious that man can process thought and dreams unconsciously. Descartes also in his theory cannot make the certainty of the soul having anything to do directly with the human body. Therefore there was room for improvement in both theories. Berkeley says that God is always perceiving all possible perceptions. Thus, when you have an idea of leaving your room, God is still having the idea of being inside your room, so it is still existing for you when you return.