David Hume and John Locke were the most known philosophers of the eighteen century. They are, therefore, primarily responsible for shaping contemporary philosophical thought. Since Hume believed that all knowledge must be acquired through experience and that the mind is a blank slate at birth (Waldow), he based his perception view on empiricism. He said perception can only teach us about the world through stories and instances. Using our sense experiences as a starting point, Hume argues that we can reason and infer about the nature of matter and the physical universe. As De Rosa (40) points out, Locke argued against the assumption that we are born with an empty mind and claimed that we already have thoughts and opinions (Kim). He believed that we can gain insight into the world around us because our thoughts are influenced by it. Hume and Locke disagreed on moral questions because their theories of perception and reality were so different. Since our senses are the only way to acquire knowledge of the world, Hume argued that they should serve as the foundation of our ethical system (Waldow). He suggested that everyone receives a sense of good and wrong through a combination of their own experiences and the approval or disapproval of those in their social circle. According to Locke, we can only understand the consequences of our actions if we base our ethics on our knowledge of the external world (O’Brien). He reasoned that based on our understanding of the world and the true nature of things, we might determine what right and evil (O’Brien) is. Therefore, the paper compares Hume’s and Locke’s views on perception and reality, where Hume argues that all we can know are our perceptions and that we cannot access the external world directly.
Understanding the concepts of perception and reality
Understanding and interpreting sensory data from the external world is the mental
process known as perception (Kim). It entails receiving and analyzing information through the senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell (Kim). It is the groundwork for figuring out how the world works and how we fit into it. When it comes to the universe beyond ourselves, Hume argues, we can never know anything for sure by our senses alone. Based on these feelings, he reasoned, humans might make conclusions about objects and the physical world by making associations and inferences (Nidditch). For instance, we can conclude that fire is hot since touching it causes us to feel warm. On the other hand, Locke thought we could gain knowledge of the external world since our senses are caused by external phenomena (De Rosa). He contended that our experiences of things in the exterior world are grounded on the reality of their essences. The true nature of a chair, for instance, is what gives rise to our awareness of chairs. People may have different impressions of the same thing or event because various life circumstances and experiences color their perspectives. For instance, other people’s experiences with the same object can lead to contrasting impressions of the same thing. Our preconceptions and prejudices can also color our perceptions. According to Hume, our preconceived notions and biases color our worldview and cause us to make faulty inferences (Waldow). A person may form unfavorable impressions and false assumptions about a given group of people due to, for instance, a preexisting bias towards that group. According to Locke, one’s preconceived notions and personal prejudices can cause one to draw false conclusions about the world around them (De Rosa). For instance, if one person is prejudiced toward another religion, they may create false assumptions about it and its adherents. The term “reality” describes the external condition of events independent of our internal mental constructs. Since our senses always distort reality, Hume argues, we can never know the external world as it truly is. He reasoned that people’s feelings could lead them to make assumptions about objects and the physical world (Nidditch). We can tell fire is hot because touching it causes our flesh to heat up. However, Locke contended that knowledge of the external world is possible because stimuli in the world activate our senses. He claimed that our understanding of the world is founded on the truth of objects’ essences. The chair, for instance, is noticed initially due to its intrinsic properties. Our preconceived notions and prejudices shape the lenses through which we view the world. Hume argues that prejudice and preconceptions cause us to see the world in a skewed way and to form erroneous conclusions. For instance, a person’s preexisting bias toward a particular group of people may cause that person to generate unfavorable impressions and incorrect assumptions about the members of that group. According to Locke, this is due to people’s inherent prejudices and preconceived notions about the universe (De Rosa). One example is how religious intolerance can lead to false assumptions about people of other faiths.
David Hume, a renowned philosopher of the Enlightenment, is the source of some of modern philosophy’s most influential concepts. Hume’s view of perception was grounded in empiricism, the theory that all knowledge is gained by experience and that the mind is a blank slate when we are born. Since our senses can only provide us with sensations, he argues, they can never provide us with direct knowledge of the external world (Waldow). Hume argues that humans form ideas about things and the physical world by making connections and drawing inferences from sensory experiences. Since touching fire makes us feel warm, we can deduce it is hot. Hume claims that we all need our senses to understand the world beyond ourselves. Hume’s theory of perception offers numerous valuable insights into the world and ethics. In Hume’s view, prejudices and preconceptions distort our perception of the world and lead us to draw erroneous conclusions about it (Waldow). Hume argued that our internal biases and preconceptions might lead us to form incorrect conclusions about the external world, as noted by Locke. For instance, we may be less inclined to perceive the evil in other people’s actions if we believe they are all generally kind.
The second argument is that no two people experience the same world, and their reactions to the same thing might vary greatly (Nidditch). One person may find a particular genre of music to be sublime, while another may find it to be jarring. This suggests multiple valid perspectives on any topic rather than a single, objective truth. Since our views on the world are constantly evolving, Hume argued (Waldow), we must be receptive to new information and perspectives. He argued that because our thoughts and biases might lead us to incorrect assumptions about the external world, it is crucial to be open to many views to gain a more accurate image of reality. Hume concluded that we could increase our knowledge of the universe by letting go of our biases and preconceived beliefs (Nidditch). He argued that a more sophisticated understanding of the world and ethics can only be attained by being willing to challenge one’s worldview and ethical assumptions. Hume’s explanation of vision forms the basis for most of modern philosophy. His theories on the nature of perception have aided our understanding of the mind and the world and the influence of one’s preconceived notions and biases. We already know that we may make morally questionable decisions based on our preconceived conceptions and personal preferences, thanks to Hume’s ideas on perception. Hume’s views on perception have had a significant impact on our worldview and our morality.
Locke founded his theory of perception on the premise that the mind is not a blank slate at birth and that we have preexisting thoughts (De Rosa). He maintained that we can gain insight into the world beyond our senses since other happenings influence our perceptions. In particular, Locke contended that our perceptions of the external world are caused by the existence of true essences within those objects. The true nature of a chair, for instance, is what gives rise to our awareness of chairs. According to Locke, this information about the outside world is crucial to understanding the universe and making moral decisions (De Rosa). There are numerous ethical and metaphysical ramifications of Locke’s theory of perception. Locke claimed that it is possible to create false views about the external world due to our own internal biases and preconceptions. For instance, if we think everyone is decent, we could be less likely to see the bad in their acts. Second, Locke maintained that knowing the external world and the genuine essences of objects is crucial to comprehend the consequences of our acts (O’Brien). He claimed that the only way to determine right and wrong accurately is to establish moral principles based on our grasp of the genuine essences of objects and our knowledge of the external world. Therefore, Locke argues (De Rosa) that introspection is essential to making sound cosmic judgments. He claimed that one must be receptive to criticism to build stable moral views. Locke reasoned that being receptive to new ideas and viewpoints was crucial since our biases and preconceptions can lead us to false conclusions about the world. His key argument was that people could not make sound moral and international decisions when they acted hastily based on their prejudices and assumptions. Locke’s notion of vision has significantly affected modern philosophical discussion. His understanding of how one’s biases can cloud one’s view of the world and other people’s behavior has been beneficial. Locke’s views of perception have influenced numerous disciplines, including ethics, psychology, and neuroscience. Our worldview and moral compass may be traced back to Locke’s ideas on perception.
Differences between Hume’s and Locke’s views on perception and reality
Hume and Locke’s fundamental dispute on perception and reality stems from their divergent views on the beginnings of knowledge. As Hume contends (Waldow), our senses are the only means to gain an understanding of the external world. He argued that the mental constructs we use to make sense of the material world are based on our associations and inferences from sensory experiences. In Locke’s view, knowing something’s essential character is the starting point for comprehending its external manifestation. Locke argued that this data was fundamental for understanding the universe and making moral decisions because it allows us to see an item like a chair. Hume and Locke have different ideas on trusting our senses of reality. We make incorrect assessments of the cosmos because of our prejudices and ingrained beliefs, as stated by Hume. He argued that people’s prejudices and assumptions frequently lead them astray (Locke). However, Locke argued that knowing the true natures of objects and the effects of our actions is essential to comprehending the cosmos (O’Brien). He says that one must first have a firm grasp of the external world and knowledge of the actual nature of things to understand right and evil clearly. In addition, Hume and Locke had different ideas on the importance of an open mind. According to Hume, gaining a more grounded worldview required an openness to other people’s points of view (Waldow). According to Hume, avoiding making hasty judgments based on our preconceived notions and biases is crucial to maintaining an open mind. Locke argued that to have a thorough understanding of the world and ethics; one must be willing to have their beliefs questioned (De Rosa). Hume believed that one must be prepared to challenge their worldview and ethical beliefs to have a more nuanced understanding of the world and ethics.
We each bring our preconceptions and worldviews into our perceptions, which both Hume and Locke acknowledge this. According to Hume, our preconceived notions and biases cause us to form erroneous judgments about the universe (Waldow). Locke believes our biases and assumptions can mislead us about the world. Both Hume and Locke argued that an individual’s worldview and morality would benefit through exposure to alternative points of view. Another way in which Hume’s and Locke’s views on perception and reality are similar is that both authors believe that understanding the results of our actions requires knowledge. According to Hume, moral principles depend on whether or not we approve of particular acts and that each of us arrives at our own sense of right and wrong based on our unique experiences. Locke argued that understanding the world around us and the true nature of things was crucial for developing a moral sense. Both Hume and Locke argued that the way one looks at one’s acts and their consequences is crucial. Last, both Hume and Locke agreed that one must use their senses to make sense of the universe. According to Hume, it is via making associations and inferences from our sensory experiences that we build our beliefs about things and the physical world (Nidditch). According to Locke, our knowledge of the world is grounded in our ability to recognize the “true essences” of things (De Rosa). Both Hume and Locke, two very different thinkers, agreed that how we frame the world is fundamental to how we comprehend it.
Hume and Locke’s views on ethics
Different ethical perspectives can be traced back to the differing views of perception and reality held by David Hume and John Locke. Hume’s theory of perception relied solely on empirical data due to his empiricist beliefs that all knowledge must be acquired via experience and that the mind is a blank slate at birth. He argues that stories are the only method for our sense of sight to gain knowledge of the world (Waldow). However, Locke argues that everyone is born with a set of beliefs and an inherent bias toward particular kinds of knowledge. He reasoned that since our environments impact our thinking, we should be able to notice relevant details. Hume claimed that our morality should be based on our senses since they are all we have for learning about the cosmos (Waldow). According to Hume, one must be willing to consider alternative viewpoints to develop a moral compass. Locke argues that we need to conduct empirical research to learn the results of our activities (O’Brien). He contends that we can only arrive at a correct understanding of right and wrong by basing our moral standards on knowledge of the external world and the actual nature of things. According to Wallerstein (29), Hume argues that we each develop our sense of good and wrong based on our individual experiences and that moral principles are founded on whether we find certain acts acceptable or unacceptable (O’Brien). Locke argued that morality must be grounded in understanding the external world and the true nature of objects (O’Brien). Differences in perception and actuality are at the heart of Hume’s and Locke’s ethical ideas. David Hume maintained that our ethics should be based on our interior experiences, in contrast to John Locke’s belief that ethics should be based on knowledge of the exterior world. Both Hume and Locke claimed that a complete comprehension of the universe, ethics, and the results of one’s actions required an openness to new ideas and honesty about one’s opinions. Reading the works of both Hume and Locke is necessary for any serious student of perception, reality, and how our own biases and preconceptions can lead us to incorrect conclusions about the world outside.
The views of Hume and Locke on perception and reality have been attacked for being too reductionist and for failing to consider non-rational forms of knowledge. All knowledge, according to Hume, must be acquired by personal experience because “the mind is a blank slate at birth” (Waldow). He said perception can only give us information about the world indirectly through stories and examples (Waldow). Since Locke argues that external experiences stimulate our senses, we can gain knowledge of the world beyond ourselves. Even though Hume and Locke did not value intuition and reason as knowledge sources, they did believe that perceptions are critical for understanding the outcomes of our actions. Locke argued that we could only correctly comprehend good and wrong by basing our moral principles on our awareness of the world outside ourselves and the true nature of objects (O’Brien). Both Hume and Locke maintained that understanding the consequences of our acts required looking at the way we thought about those consequences. It is also feasible to counter by arguing that the world is oversimplified by Hume’s and Locke’s views on perception and reality. Locke believes our prejudices and prior beliefs about the cosmos could lead us astray from the truth. In response, both Hume and Locke argued that openness to alternative points of view was crucial to the growth of a sound worldview and moral code. According to Hume, one can only have a complete understanding of the cosmos or ethics by being willing to consider alternative points of view (Waldow). If we wish to have a correct account of the world and ethics, we must be ready to face our beliefs, as Locke argues (De Rosa). Both Hume and Locke argued that our prejudices and biases could mislead us into drawing false conclusions about the external world. Therefore, we must be receptive to new ideas and willing to question our own.
Hume and Locke’s views on perception and reality illuminate how our preconceived assumptions and prejudices can lead us to misunderstand the world. Hume and Locke believed that one must remain open to new ideas to better understand the world and morality. It is essential since our preconceptions and prejudices may shape our worldview. Hume and Locke’s work sheds new light on perception, reality and how our preconceptions and prejudices can lead us to see the world wrongly.
In conclusion, the ethical differences between Hume and Locke can be understood in terms of their competing theories of perception and reality. Hume claimed that our moral code should be based on our senses because they are the only way to learn about the universe. On the other hand, Locke maintained that our ethics must be found in our knowledge of the external world to understand the implications of our acts thoroughly. Reading the works of both Hume and Locke is necessary for any serious student of perception, reality, and how our own biases and preconceptions can lead us to incorrect conclusions about the world outside. The evaluation of the concept of perception and reality should consider their work because of the significant impact their ideas on perception and reality have had on their ethics.
De Rosa, Raffaella. “Locke’s Essay, Book I: The Question‐Begging Status of the Anti‐Nativist Arguments.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69.1 (2004): 37-64. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00383.x
Kim, Byoungjae. “Hume on the Problem of Other Minds.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27.3 (2019): 535-555. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608788.2018.1524365
O’Brien, Dan. Hume on the Self and Personal Identity. Springer Nature, 2022. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-04275-1_6
Peter, Nidditch, an essay concentrating on human understanding edited with a foreword
Waldow, Anik. “Hume’s belief in other minds.” Europe-Asia Studies 17.1 (2009): 119-132. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608780802548341