Evaluation of innatism Flashcards
innatism
our mind contains concept or truths or both from the moment it exists
2 ways that innatism is supported
- inmates is supported by the universality of some concepts/knowledge
- innatism is the best/only explanation of the origin of atleast some knowledge/concepts
innatism is supported by the universality of some knowledge/concepts
- all humans agree on a particular truth and share particular concepts
- there are truths and concepts that everyone know and has which are universal and inmates explains this better than empiricist does therefore innatism is probably true.
objection to innatism is supported by the universality of some knowledge/concepts
- there are no such universally accepted truths and concepts and it opposes innatism
- this means that universality cannot be used to support innatism and innatism is false
- this is because not all people have the knowledge and concepts and so they are not universal
- it is not only children that lack knowledge of mathematical and geometrical truths, if we assume that there are an infinite amount of mathematical and geometrical truths then for all people there will always remain truths and concepts that we have never through of/about.
response to objection that there are no such universally accepted truths/concepts
They can be universally within people’s minds even if not all people are (yet) aware of them
- although we are not aware of innate truths/concepts immediately at the time we are born, they are still there within our minds
- Although children are not yet aware of innate ideas and truths they are still there within their minds
- some experience we have triggers the awareness of the knowledge without itself justifying that knowledge
MARBLE ANALOGY:
our knowledge is like the veins in the marble where we have to go through manual labour to uncover those veins like how we go through experiences to uncover this knowledge.
counter-response to They can be universally within people’s minds even if not all people are (yet) aware of them
- It doesn’t make sense to say that something is in your mind but you are not aware of it
- if you have knowledge in your mind then you will know that you have that knowledge
response to It doesn’t make sense to say that something is in your mind but you are not aware of it
- It does make sense to say that something is in your mind but you are not aware of it
- We are not constantly consciously aware of all truths that we know and concepts that we possess/understand.
- I know that Madrid is the capital of Spain / I have the concept of <Spain> but I am not always aware of (i.e. thinking about) this.</Spain>
- truths/concepts can be in in my mind even though I am not (always) aware of them
innatism is the best/only explanation of the origin of our knowledge of necessary truths
P1: I know necessary truths (maths, geometry, the principle of sufficient reason)
P2: This knowledge is either based on experience (a posteriori) or it is innate.
P3: It cannot be based on experience because necessary truths are propositions that are true in all possible worlds and this knowledge would not be possible if it were based on my (limited) experience of the world.
I cannot know how things must (necessarily) be based on experiencing how particular things in fact (contingently) are.
I cannot know what holds in all possible worlds based on my limited experience of this actual world.
I cannot know a necessary truth based on my experiences of contingent things.
MC: Therefore it must be innate.
objection 1 to innatism is the best/only explanation of the origin of our knowledge of necessary truths
- These claims are not known a posteriori but this does not mean that they are examples of innate knowledge.
objection 2 to innatism is the best/only explanation of the origin of our knowledge of necessary truths. claims about necessary truths of maths/geometry and logic
- The necessary truths of maths/geometry/logic are a priori but not innate: they are just analytic truths.
- this knowledge is not from experience, but it isn’t innate either.
- it is knowledge of a “relation of ideas” (an analytic truth - true by definition).
- I know that triangles have three sides (a necessary truth). This is not from experience - the innatist is right about that. However, it isn’t innate either. I came to know that it is true the moment (the day!) I came to know what the word triangle means.
objection 3 to innatism is the best/only explanation of the origin of our knowledge of necessary truths. Causal claims are not known a priori and not known posteriori, so we don’t have knowledge of them.
- If we apply Hume’s ‘fork’ we realise that they are not “relations of ideas” so we can’t know them a priori
- They are not known as “matters of fact” either, since we do not know that ALL things have causes / explanations. The most that we could know/justify a posteriori is everything we have experienced so far has a cause / explanation.
response to OBJECTION: The necessary truths of maths/geometry/logic are a priori but not innate: they are just analytic truths.
- The concepts that make up these “relations of ideas” are still innate
- the concepts that make up these analytic truths are innate, and so our understanding of these truths depends on our possession of innate concepts.
- So although we shouldn’t be knowledge innatists, we should still be concept innatists and so empiricists are still, overall, wrong (because concept empiricism is false).
Debate 3 for innatism: Descartes’ ‘trademark’ argument based on the concept of God (part of his cosmological argument)
P1: I have the concept of God.
P2: This concept is either based on experience (a posteriori) or it is innate.
P3: It cannot be based on experience because we have not had sensory experiences of God / an actually infinite being
the idea didn’t arrive at some point (“unexpectedly”), as other a posteriori concepts do.
it cannot be a concept that I have created based on other a posteriori concepts that I already have because I can’t add to or take away from the idea
C1: Therefore it must be innate.
objection to descartes trademark argument: There is another/a better explanation: it is a posteriori
- There is another/a better explanation: it is a posteriori (from experience), not innate
- all concepts are ultimately based on experiences we have had.
- our idea of God can be traced back to impressions we have experienced.
- Impressions of desirable human qualities can be combined and extended to make the complex concept of God.
- Our idea of God is just a complex idea of our own creation. It is not innate.
response to There is another/a better explanation: it is a posteriori
- Our concept of God requires a concept of “infinity” which itself must be innate
- criticise Hume because he helps himself to the notion of “without limit”, which seems to mean “infinite”.
- The concept of <infinity> seems hard to grasp from experience alone.</infinity>
- We have never seen infinite things, space or time. All of what we have experienced is finite.
- In which case it is no help to say that we get the concept of God by combining characteristics of humans
