Locke in his first essay is concerned with statements of fact, and ideas. Statements of fact are also called principles. Ideas on the other hand are things that we have names for. Locke is against the possible existence of innate ideas. Locke’s objections proceed as follows: Firstly, if there were innate ideas, then everyone would assent to them; secondly, there are no principles that everyone assents to, and so thirdly, there are therefore no innate ideas. To further buttress his point, he mentions children and shows how they are born with empty-slate minds, knowing nothing without deriving it from experience first. He also shows that some of the ideas which we might call innate are actually so complex that they need to be analyzed first to be believed. In all his argumentation, Locke repeatedly appeals to the principles of non-contradiction and identity.
An objection to Locke’s view is that we do not have innate ideas per se, but only innate capacities with which to conceive of innate ideas. Locke rubbishes this view because, if that were the case, then everything we could know would be innate because our capacities are the very ways by which we cogitate and come to know anything at all. For Leibniz, we have an inherent disposition to know and we can come to know things through introspection. In Leibniz’s view, even though experience is important in coming to know things, it is not our basis for actually knowing them. In his view, we can never depend solely on experience in our knowledge of reality, because particular representations of universal realities are limited in number.
The underpinning consequently of substantial (epistemological) knowledge or truth must be the mind. For Kant, the categories form the epistemological molds by which we have innate appreciation of reality. Recall in this regard what St. Augustine would say: Who in his right mind would send his son to school to learn what the teacher thinks? It is only when the student realizes within himself that truths have been expressed that he comes to believe. In other words, like Leibniz, Augustine is apparently saying that experience alone is not sufficient for knowledge. Locke in any case is arguing for empiricism, and so he grinds the gears of rationalists. He distinguishes between simple and complex ideas; as well as primary and secondary qualities. He also, inter alia, talks about personal identity. His attack on innate ideas is called an attack on nativism. Either by sensation or reflection for Locke, every idea is obtained via experience and nowhere else. Locke is epistemologically conservative.
One of the objections Locke is interested in quelling is the supposed possibility that a child or an idiot can have ideas that they are unaware of. For Locke, it is a contradiction in terms to be both knowledgeable and ignorant at the same time. It is a manifest repugnance to the principle of non-contradiction, which he depends upon in the defense of his ideas. Hence, for Locke, ideas cannot be unconsciously imprinted in the minds of babies before they are born. Another objection Locke seeks to quell is that we get to discover innate ideas by the power of reason. For Locke, we cannot be sure of this, because we cannot effectively distinguish between the truths that come to us later, and those that we suppose are innate, albeit all supposedly obtained via the exercise of reason.
I think that a possible weakness of Locke’s argument is to ground innate ideas on universal assent. Can there not be innate ideas that are not necessarily shared by everyone, perhaps a worldview dependent on a demographic orientation? Besides, babies are unable to communicate and so it is impossible tell for sure if they have ideas or not. Notice in any case that Locke’s views remain in sharp contrast with the views of the rationalists. Where Descartes and other rationalists would distrust the knowledge sourced via the senses, Locke seems to be affording this sort of knowledge a pride of place. As far back of Plato, the dichotomy of body (sensation) and spirit (rationality) has been clearly enunciated. Descartes and Berkeley (an idealist) side with Plato, where Locke would more easily tolerate Aristotle’s views than theirs.
An objection to Locke’s view is that we do not have innate ideas per se, but only innate capacities with which to conceive of innate ideas. Locke rubbishes this view because, if that were the case, then everything we could know would be innate because our capacities are the very ways by which we cogitate and come to know anything at all. For Leibniz, we have an inherent disposition to know and we can come to know things through introspection. In Leibniz’s view, even though experience is important in coming to know things, it is not our basis for actually knowing them. In his view, we can never depend solely on experience in our knowledge of reality, because particular representations of universal realities are limited in number.
The underpinning consequently of substantial (epistemological) knowledge or truth must be the mind. For Kant, the categories form the epistemological molds by which we have innate appreciation of reality. Recall in this regard what St. Augustine would say: Who in his right mind would send his son to school to learn what the teacher thinks? It is only when the student realizes within himself that truths have been expressed that he comes to believe. In other words, like Leibniz, Augustine is apparently saying that experience alone is not sufficient for knowledge. Locke in any case is arguing for empiricism, and so he grinds the gears of rationalists. He distinguishes between simple and complex ideas; as well as primary and secondary qualities. He also, inter alia, talks about personal identity. His attack on innate ideas is called an attack on nativism. Either by sensation or reflection for Locke, every idea is obtained via experience and nowhere else. Locke is epistemologically conservative.
One of the objections Locke is interested in quelling is the supposed possibility that a child or an idiot can have ideas that they are unaware of. For Locke, it is a contradiction in terms to be both knowledgeable and ignorant at the same time. It is a manifest repugnance to the principle of non-contradiction, which he depends upon in the defense of his ideas. Hence, for Locke, ideas cannot be unconsciously imprinted in the minds of babies before they are born. Another objection Locke seeks to quell is that we get to discover innate ideas by the power of reason. For Locke, we cannot be sure of this, because we cannot effectively distinguish between the truths that come to us later, and those that we suppose are innate, albeit all supposedly obtained via the exercise of reason.
I think that a possible weakness of Locke’s argument is to ground innate ideas on universal assent. Can there not be innate ideas that are not necessarily shared by everyone, perhaps a worldview dependent on a demographic orientation? Besides, babies are unable to communicate and so it is impossible tell for sure if they have ideas or not. Notice in any case that Locke’s views remain in sharp contrast with the views of the rationalists. Where Descartes and other rationalists would distrust the knowledge sourced via the senses, Locke seems to be affording this sort of knowledge a pride of place. As far back of Plato, the dichotomy of body (sensation) and spirit (rationality) has been clearly enunciated. Descartes and Berkeley (an idealist) side with Plato, where Locke would more easily tolerate Aristotle’s views than theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment