As we know Descartes is a rationalist and Locke is an empiricist. They are the main confliction between empiricism and rationalism. In rationalism, we are pretty much dependent on our experience and our organ of sense but in empiricism, we try to get distance from our experience and gain knowledge. Rationalist asserts that our knowledge gains dependently base of our sense experiences. But empirics asserts that our knowledge comes from our experiences. This is only one clear confliction that we can see between rationalist and empiricist. However, these philosophers arrive at the similar problem and they can’t be sure how to define their ideas accurately to represent the external world. In this essay, I like to write how each philosopher define themselves in this situation and how they view the external world based on their theories? Descartes for explaining what the external world is going through the several of meditations. In the first meditation, Descartes says that the god has given me a strong natural tendency to believe there are material subjects which cause my ideas or perception. Also, he mentions that people must have the doubt about whatever they learned through their senses. We can’t totally trust on our senses because they can be deceived by evil which later introduces the” Evil genius”. Therefore, we can’t be certain of everything. Then Descartes bring the cogito argument that means” I think therefore I know that I exist.” His argument states some certain points about the god and the external world. First, the concepts of existence, self, mind, and doubt doesn’t exist by their selves. This is the human that create them and put them in his mind. Second, he says that God is superior and he’s good so, he can’t deceive us through our senses. Indeed, whatever we perceive does really exist and the external world exist, too. If we want to see what’s the Locke’s idea about the external world we need to look at the” Concerning human understanding”. According to his theory, we can only perceive our ideas. We can know the world and its existence beyond our ideas. Second, he says that there’s a distinction between knowledge and opinion. Also, Locke strongly believes that the knowledge of the external world is neither based on inference or reasoning but it’s our reflection of the ideas in the mind. Hence, knowledge of the external world is not the matter of knowing facts about our mind. Third, special difficulties of understanding the knowledge of the external world lead Locke to the skepticism. Through that skepticism, Locke concludes that there isn’t any external world because we can only know about the internal and external world supposed to be whatever exists outside of our mind. As we look through Locke and Descartes we see how much differences each idea has. Descartes believes that the external world exists through our senses but Locke believes that the external world doesn’t exist. However, if we look at the time period, we will see that actually, they lived almost at the same time. However, when we look at them ideas about the external world is totally different. Descartes bring us the different thinking about the external world and Descartes brings us the other way thinking. Personally, I think that the external and internal both exsit. It’s like the conjoined eventes. If one doesn’t exsit the other one can’t exsit. People they don’t live only in their mind, unless they perceive and scan the world around them then referred to the internal world they can live in this world.