Comparison Of Rene Descartes, John Locke, And George Berkeley

Faith is how I choose to believe that our existence is beyond material and is comprised of mind and spirit. Rene’ Descartes, John Locke, and George Berkeley offer several arguments to affirm their views on materialism. The intention of this paper is to discuss the aforementioned approach to materialism as it aligns with Berkley’s position. The foundation for this discussion will explain how Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley describe the nature of physical things and how they compare and contrast with each other’s views. Furthermore, it will point out the dilemmas and plausibility within their positions. Descartes asserts that physical objects exist. He does this by suggesting that there may be other causes for our perception of these materials,
However, if his intention is to make our minds cognizant of material objects that aren’t really present, then this is a deception. God is no deceiver, and how do we know this, according to Descartes? God’s very nature is good and, by definition would not deceive us as it would be a contradiction of his essence. Moreover, no Demon or evil entity could have fooled one’s mind into believing that there are physical objects either, as this would be a deception as well. God is in control of how the world is manifested in our minds. Therefore, God has not generated false visualizations of materials by himself or any evil entities; physical objects really do
Descartes assumes that everyone else’s imagination is just like his. Is it possible that when others think of a physical object, it is just as vivid in their mind as it is when they perceive said object? They may not be able to distinguish a mental image versus their perception. Furthermore, Descartes’ explanation about God as a deceiver is incomplete. Descartes does not thoroughly explain that God is good just by his nature. He simply states that God is good and not deceptive, by explaining that what is good and not deceptive, is