Descartes Vs Locke

Dating as far back as the 17th and 18th century, the dispute between rationalism and empiricism has long been the opposing philosophies of René Descartes and John Locke. Descartes was a rationalist who believed in innate ideas, solid reasoning, and the ability of deduction. In contrast, Locke was an empiricist that believed in sensory perception, induction, and attaining knowledge through experience which he argued was our only source of ideas. This brings us to the prompt; describe the difference between Descartes' and Locke's theories of how we acquire knowledge of the external world. According to Descartes' First Meditation, he writes that knowledge is naturally in us, and that this knowledge comes from the mind. In addition, Descartes points
out that our senses can be deceived therefore any knowledge that derives from our senses are in fact in doubt. With stark contrast, Locke’s essay mentions the significance of external experience, knowledge that can be obtained using our five senses. Furthermore, Locke explains his theory of sense experience to be an analysis of the characteristics of an object that conveys ideas to a person’s mind. In addition, he writes that the “great source of most of the ideas we have he calls sensation”. Locke also discusses the internal sense or the reflection, that he describes as the ideas that can only be had by the mind. My assessment about the two conflicting theories is that they are not mutual exclusive therefore the two can exist simultaneously. I personally fancy myself a rationalist when I am working on a complex problem that requires reasoning, and mathematical principles. In contrast, there have been times when I have relied on my senses to assess a situation, and that experience has lead me to draw the correct conclusion.