The Origin of IdeasWebster's dictionary defines the word idea as 1) something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity, 2 ) an opinion, belief, or principle, 3) a plan, scheme, or method, 4) the essence of a specific situation, and 5) a notion. Today we have a better understanding of these definitions thanks to the thoughts and writings of Descartes and John Locke. These two have very different opinions on the origin of ideas. Descartes is a rationalist, one who uses a method of inquiry that considers reason as the main source and test of knowledge, while Locke is an empiricist, one who has the attitude that beliefs should be accepted and put into practice only if they were confirmed first. from real experience. Their views are opposite, but both left their mark on the concept and origin of the "idea". Locke believes that all our ideas come from experience. The mind has no innate ideas, it only has innate abilities. Our mind is like a clean, white sheet of paper. They are experiences that fill our pages with characters and symbols (33). Locke also compares our acquisition of ideas to that of a child coming into the world. If the child grew up in a black and white world he would know nothing (he would have no ideas) of a green or scarlet world (35). Our mind can perceive, remember, desire, deliberate and will. It is precisely these mental activities that, together with experience, are the source of most of the ideas we have. Locke also states that our senses play an important role in the creation of ideas. The ideas we have thanks to our senses are called sensations. Without sensation the mind would have nothing to operate on and there... in the middle of the paper... This requires thought and intellectual reasoning, the basis of the rationalist vision. Experience? Reasoning? How we develop ideas and become the people we are. Maybe it's a combination of the two methods. The origin of ideas is a very complex question. Two great philosophers have opposing views on how an individual from the moment of birth develops ideas and transforms them into knowledge. How do we know which one is correct? Without experience, how we develop ideas about things and without reasoning, how we put ideas together and make sense of them so we can gain knowledge. We need both of these methods of generating ideas to get the most out of it. Neither is entirely correct; neither of them is completely wrong. It is when you combine the two, using as little or as much rationalism/empiricism as you want, to get the true origin of ideas.