John Locke is a great English philosopher of the late 17th century. In Book 1 of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he presents many ideas of knowledge and its origins. He rejects the existence of innate ideas and proves his beliefs with many arguments, one being that “universal consent proves nothing innate” (Locke 630). Another argument is that children and idiots do not have this knowledge imprinted on their minds, which must prove innate knowledge to be nonexistent. I disagree with Locke because I believe we all have immortal souls that carry on knowledge from our past lives, and in the theory of recollection corresponding Plato, which is innate. In this paper, I will try to disprove Locke’s arguments against the existence of innate ideas using Plato’s theories along my own beliefs. First, I will explain his statements and arguments then those of Plato and mine, as they are parallel.
John Locke believes there is no such thing as innate ideas. Innate ideas are inherent, meaning it is knowledge that was derived even before birth. “It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain ‘innate principles’; some primary notions… characters, as it were stamped upon the mind of man; which the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it” (Locke 630). Locke is saying that he believes the mind to be a “blank slate” when we are born. He says all knowledge either comes from perception or reflection. The unique
Do we have innate ideas? Offer your view with reference to the work of Descartes and Locke
John Locke's theory of knowledge stated that all knowledge is derived from the senses, that are converted into impressions, that are then made into ideas, either simple or complex. Simple ideas are ones that involve only one sense, whereas complex ideas consist of multiple simple ideas being combined to create a vivid one. Ideas have two qualities, primary qualities, and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are things that are perceived the same for everyone, and secondary qualities are the individual perceptions of
Locke’s states that “All knowledge comes from the senses through experience” interpreted when Locke’s “blank slate” idea to when we are kids we know nothing. Our brains have to make connections to things and these connections are gained through experience and continues
Locke (1632-1704) further discounted the work of Descartes, as well as that of Plato. He maintained that all ideas originate in ones experiences. A newborn is devoid of ideas until experience begins to form these ideas.
As humans, where does our knowledge come from? In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes outlines his proof for the existence of God. However, David Hume offers a rebuttal in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that questions not only Descartes’ proof but also his notion of how humans acquire knowledge. In what follows, I will examine Descartes’ proof of God’s existence, then argue that Hume would disagree with it by maintaining that humans can conceive of God through mental processes. Furthermore, I will show how in responding to Descartes' claim that God is the source of our knowledge, Hume asserts that we are instead limited to knowledge from experience.
Locke also believes that people have innate ideas through experiences. He has three explanations for this idea. Firstly, if we had innate ideas, we would know that we have them, which means that if you have ideas they are conscience and everything you think, you think you think. Secondly, if there were innate truths of reason we would all agree on them. Lastly, our memory cannot recall these innate ideas.
With the information given, the slave recollected his thoughts and used the reasoning Socrates said to get the correct answer. In addition to that, one can not ignore the idea that the slave might have known or overheard something in the past about squares and triangles. Using that and the questions that Socrates asked him, the slave did not get the correct answer because it was innate. But because he used knowledge he might have remembered from past experiences and the new knowledge he just acquired. What is Locke’s main argument against innate ideas (about universal agreement)?
Furthermore, Locke’s profound analysis on sources of knowledge contributed to today’s psychological analysis of the unsolved dilemma of nature versus nurture while significantly shaping the foundation of modern psychology. As Locke introduced empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he was an important figure of Enlightenment to foster and alternate the schools of thinking in many spheres including here philosophy and psychology among many others.
Like Descartes, Locke also believed in an external world. As an empiricist, Locke relied heavily on the senses to provide true knowledge (Moore 2002). He shared Aristotle’s belief that the mind is a blank slate, also known as tabula rasa, at birth (Paquette 211). Our sense experiences thereafter provide us with knowledge to fill in those slates (Paquette 211). In Locke’s “Representative Theory of Perception,” also known as Epistemological Dualism, he stated that material objects exist and are separate entities from human beings (Paquette 227). However, he also believed that objects exist in the mind as psychological entities (Paquette 227). Locke concluded that people can taste, smell, touch, and see the external world which, in turn, becomes impressions in our minds (Paquette 227). Descartes and Locke are thus seen to be similar in the sense that they both believed in an external world.
Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas. Then the question arises of
John Locke starts off his treatise with the thesis that ideas spring from two fountainheads--sensation and reflection. The former, man acquires from external sensible objects that affect man's five senses--those same senses endowed upon all men by the Creator. Material things outside man's being are the objects of sensation. Through experiencing sensation, man's thinking process gives rise to ideas thereby gaining for the thinking being a certain amount of
John Locke, an empiricist belonging to seventeenth century philosophy, is well-known today for his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In chapter ii of Book I of this work, Locke firmly rejects the theory of nativism that proposes innate ideas in humans. An important disclaimer to be noted before continuing is that Locke makes his case by first interpreting nativism in its simplest form (occurrent nativism) -- as opposed to the dispositional nativism that requires a sophisticated process of discovering the content of one’s mind. This distinction is significant since it is the latter definition of nativism that most of Locke’s opponents use to weaken An Essay. In any case, however, the nativist individual would claim that innate ideas are present in man from birth, with senses beginning in the womb, and that these primary ideas meet the soul as soon as they come into existence in the world. It is possible that Locke could accept the presence of innate capacities that make it possible to acquire knowledge, but he could not agree that the innate principles exist in an imprinted manner independent of sensory experience. He arrives at the hypothesis that the human mind is a tabula rasa upon which true knowledge can only be formed from empirical experience. The most convincing defense that Locke makes against the doctrine of innate ideas is a rebuttal to the argument that stems from universal consent. If Locke’s criticizers wanted to best dispute Book I of An Essay, they
When considering knowledge, Locke is interested in the ability for us to know something, the capacity of gathering and using information and understanding the limits of what we know. He believes this also leads him to realise what we perhaps, cannot know. [1] He wants to find out about the origin of our ideas. His main stand-point is that we don’t have innate ideas and he aims to get rid of the sceptical doubt about what we know. The innate ideas which Locke sets out to argue against are those which “the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it”. [2] “Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters”. [3] This quote depicts the idea of the “Tabula Rasa”, that at birth are minds
In the reading of “Innate Knowledge,” Socrates ponders around the idea that there is such a thing as an afterlife and that when one wishes to learn a certain subject, they are all recollecting what they already knew from their previous life, meaning that one's soul is immortal. Furthermore Socrates argues that a man cannot learn what he already knows, or about that which he does not know because if he knew what he wanted to learn, then he would not have the slightest clue as to what he was looking for in that particular subject (4). In other words, one does not learn, but recollect their memories and knowledge from their past life. This was observed when one of Meno’s servants who had never been educated demonstrated his capacity of knowledge
1.) Thomas Aquinas believes that humans are born with a clean slate in a state of potency and acquire knowledge through sense experiences by abstraction of the phantasms. His view on how man acquires knowledge rejects Plato’s theory that humans are born with innate species. Along with Plato’s theory of humans understanding corporeal things through innate species, Aquinas also rejects Plato’s theory that in being born with innate species, humans spend their lives recollecting their knowledge.