Analysis Of John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, claimed that the concept of universal assent is true, for “there is such a universal assent and nothing else.” In contrast to what Leibniz considered as a universal assent, “What is, is,” he argued that infants and severely handicapped adults could not even generally acknowledge this truism. Although Leibniz has suggested that empiricism simply invokes the resurfacing of innate ideas through experiential prompts, Locke attacked by stating that we may be aware that we know the idea, but by experiencing the first, we would only then be able to recall the rest. Clearly both the rationalist and empiricist have established the central significances of their argument. However, in the course of their

If reality must abide by the course of time, and time must be relative, then reality must be relative in itself. Reality changes overtime, depending on how realistically time may appear to a person. As rational beings, we are capable of knowledge. On the other hand, animals with its appetitive side are not aware of such knowledge where in time is inclusive. Thus, animals are not aware of reality. They merely perceive what their instinctual senses lead them to. These beings do not enclose their activities within the borders of time unlike humans. Therefore, reality must be relative and is dependent of

Material things manifest temporariness in the sense of decomposition—from something to nothing. Immaterial things on the other hand manifest permanence in the sense of composition—concept, knowledge, idea; from nothing to something. These material things are achieved through the sense of time, how something can give temporariness to our existence. If you were given an apple to suppress hunger, you knew prior to eating it, that it would disappear. At the same instance, we are aware that later in time, it becomes a necessity once more to take in something. Thus, eating this fruit does only give temporary