Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Locke and Hume on Knowledge. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper examines Hume and Locke's ideas about knowledge. How they differ from that of Russell is the primary focus of this essay. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA813Hum.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
experiential. In philosophy, there are generally two schools of thought which suggest that knowledge is either something attached to a larger scheme, and is universal, or it is attached to
personal experience. According to a student writing on this subject, Bertrand Russell claims that Locke and Hume do not provide a rational account of knowledge. What is the basis for
Russells criticism? Russell may in some sense be equated with Kant, at least in the position he takes on this very subject. Ongley (2005) writes that "one
of the major dramas in philosophy and psychology in the 19th century was the struggle between British associations and Kantians over the correct nature of the analysis of concepts, with
associations following Locke and Hume in holding that all concepts are constructed from observations and experiences and can be analyzed entirely into these units, while Kantians argued that there are
concepts that cannot be discovered in experience and that are necessary for the construction and definition of most other concepts (i.e., Kants categories, or Whewells "fundamental ideas")." It seems that
Russell goes beyond the Kantian critique and protests the idea of experiential knowledge as valid. This is not a lonely position. Many people do believe that knowledge comes from testing,
such as in science, and has little to do with experience. This is because experiences are of course subjective. Hence, there are people who hold that experiential knowledge is simply
not valid. For Russell it seems, knowledge comes from rational thought or analysis. Yet, it is not clear as to what Russell actually meant by analysis (Ongley, 2005). One
might surmise that what is clear is that there is a disagreement in terms of what can be viewed as true knowledge. Russell criticizes Hume and Locke because they rely
...