John Locke Argumentative Essay

Decent Essays

Addressing the question of whether we are born with innate ideas or that we are born tabula rasa in which we gain ideas through our senses, we look into Locke's understanding of both. Locke states that “No proposition can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of.” (I.II.5) which is to say that a mind cannot register an idea innately given that it isn't even conscious of it. Thus, there is not one innate idea in which is universal to everyone the instance they are born, furthermore, there is no truth that every human can assent to. Yet, to state that all ideas derive from senses would be inaccurate as the argument that counteracts Locke beliefs are written as such
“There are certain principles, …show more content…

“Whatsoever is,is and Tis impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be,which of all others, I think have the most allowed title to innate.”(I.II.4) Admitting so, this would bring the conclusion that innate ideas are universally accepted. Though Locke gives a submission of what he believes as could be the only potential towards universal innate idea/knowledge, he addresses this viewpoint clearly in the following passages. Locke addresses his first two point that for any idea to be instilled in the mind, the mind/person itself must be aware of it. Without consciousness, no idea would be brought to the minds awareness. Thus, innate ideas are universally assent to every conscious human being. Bringing out his argument to this point, Locke begins to address the very fact that innate ideas cannot be universally …show more content…

For children and “idiots”, given that there are knowledge/impression imprinted onto their minds from the beginning of their delivery to this world it would be correct to state that their inability to understand basic arithmetic or something to be and not to be as evidence that there is no innate knowledge. For, if a conscious human has been imprinted knowledge of certain innate truths, then the very fact that the human is ignorant to it then suggests the very process of this imprinting does not exist. Though Locke continues to offer his further understanding of innate knowledge as a whole, for the sake of this argument in which I brought upon, I find it satisfactory to pursue one aspect of his understanding in order to keep the dissection of both views clear to our understanding. Continuing further, by proving the fact that there is no innate knowledge, then, do we define innate knowledge as something that can be gain? Locke puts his views as following, “Between any truths the mind is capable of knowing, in respect of their original:they must all be innate, or all adventitious”

Get Access