When it comes to studying human knowledge(also known as epistemology), there are several arguments presented in the philosophical community all trying to explain how humans function. It is with philosophers like Plato and Descartes, that is innate knowledge is used in order for us to “have certainty about metaphysical truth” (Louis P. Pojman & James Fieser, Introduction To Philosophy, p. 687). The same could be also said for the philosopher Locke and his argument in the book: New Essays on Human Understanding. In this essay, I will be reviewing Locke’s argument, and how he is arguing for rationalism. Afterwards, I will be discussing why Locke’s argument is considered to be cogent. Leibniz argues that our senses does not provide us all of our actual knowledge; only that it is one of the factors that helps us attain it. According to Leibniz, our …show more content…
Meaning that with just our senses alone, we are not able to gather all of the background information on what we are experiencing in order to make a clear and precise judgement. As a result, we do not have a complete story. He describes this as obtaining “particular or individual truths”(Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, p. 150-151). Hence, our senses “are not sufficient” enough to give us all of our actual knowledge (Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, p. 150-151). That just because one particular instance happened to one individual, does not mean that the same result will happen to another. Therefore, what the individual may perceive as a truth to them, may not be the same for another person. To expand on this, Leibniz explains in his argument that the ‘general truth’ that we obtain does not count as sufficient enough evidence because the individual cannot be one hundred percent certain that they will get the same exact results a second time by only relying on their senses (Leibniz, New Essays on