For the purpose of this essay I would like to look at and discus the argument put forth by both Locke and Descartes on the topic of innate ideas. This topic, above all the rest, was one that I found to be the most thought provoking. If I had to describe where my position stands I would have to say that I fall more in the Locke end of the spectrum but with some added thoughts that I feel were overlooked. The two different positions allows the reader to be provoked into a thought process that can be quite convincing on both sides of the argument but I would tend to agree with Locke's more empirical approach to the argument. .
Descartes" process throughout the meditations to eliminate forms of knowledge or modes of gaining knowledge by finding grounds for doubt leads him into the realm of his own ideas. By using the "Dream" argument Descartes effectively eliminates sensory perception as the basis of knowledge. Even though he eventually overcomes the "Dream" argument in his later meditations he is forced to turn inward to his own mind, for a time, for his basis of all knowledge. This is then further complicated by his use of the "Demon" argument to cast doubt on his reason. Upon use of this argument Descartes is then "boxed into" the realm of his own ideas. Descartes is faced with the task of proving the existence of God to break out of the realm of his own ideas. .
Descartes proof of the existence of God is based on his idea of God. Descartes believed that he, as a thinking thing, has enough formal reality to provide the objective reality required for his ideas of all finite things. However, Descartes appeals to his innate idea of God as having such clarity and objective reality for which he himself does not posses enough formal reality to create. This innate idea, though it leads to arguments of circularity, is required for Descartes to escape the "Demon" argument and eventually the "Dream" argument.
