EMPIRICISM AND JOHN LOCKE’S EPISTEMOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCY

Abstract

Epistemology is a refutation of skepticism. Skepticism is the philosophical position that nothing can be known for sure; in other words, that the attainment of certain knowledge is impossible. An extreme version of skepticism denies the possibility of human knowledge, in other words, it claims that nothing can be known. However, epistemology assumes, not only the possibility of human knowledge but also, sometimes, the possibility of sure or certain human knowledge. Hence, it addresses the questions of the extent, the limit, the source and the nature of human knowledge. Empiricists are epistemologists who claim that all possible human knowledge derive from sense experience or perception. They are opposed to rationalist epistemologists who claim that all possible human knowledge derives from reason. Using the method of analysis, this work discusses Empiricism and takes a close look at John Locke’s epistemology with a view to ascertaining the extent to which he has been consistent with the empiricist tradition. The conclusion of the work is that John Locke deviated from the typical position of empiricism, the champion of which he is generally seen as.