innatism Flashcards
what do innatists claim
- at least some of our concepts and/or propositional knowledge are within the mind from the moment it exists
what type of theory is innatism
rationalist theory
what is rationalism
- concepts/propositonal knowledge are part of the rational structure of the mind, rather than coming from experience
- in addition to the a posteriori concepts and propositional knowledge that we get from experience, there are also concepts and propositional knowledge that are innate
- They are part of the structure of the rational mind from the moment that mind exists - from the moment that a human is first conscious before they exit the womb, which is why it’s imprecise to say ‘innatism is the view that we have knowledge from when we’re born’’).
innate concepts (concept innatism)
- concepts which have always been in the mind from the moment it existed
- according to the innate concept thesis ome of our concepts have not been gained from experience. They are instead part of our rational make-up, and experience simply triggers a process by which we consciously grasp them.
innate knowledge (knowledge innatism)
- true beliefs that are somehow contained within the mind from the moment it existed
- the innate knowledge thesis joins the Intuition/Deduction thesis in asserting that we have a priori knowledge, but it does not offer intuition and deduction as the source of that knowledge.
- It takes our a priori knowledge to be part of our rational nature. Experience may trigger our awareness of this knowledge, but it does not provide us with it. The knowledge is already there.
what is the difference between innate knowledge and knowledge through intuition
both knowledge through intuition and innate knowledge are a priori (i.e. not justified on the basis of experience). Both kinds of knowledge are non-inferentially justified (i.e. are not justified on the basis of an argument). But knowledge from intuition enters your mind the moment you have the intuition, whereas innate knowledge is in your mind from the moment it exists
Plato’s innatism and his ‘slave boy’ argument
P1: The slave boy has propositional knowledge of a geometrical truth
P2: This knowledge is either based on experience (a posteriori) or it is innate.
P3: It cannot be based on experience because it wasn’t taught to the slave boy
Other support for it not being based on experience:
(a) the lines drawn in the sand are not perfect squares and what he comes to know is something that he knows applies to perfect squares (which he hasn’t seen);
b) he comes to know, from just one example, a proposition that he realises is necessarily true of all possible squares
MC: Therefore it must be innate
background to platos innatism and the slave boy argument
so Socrates says, by our souls before they join with our bodies). We already have the knowledge we are looking to acquire, but we have in a sense ‘forgotten’ it. What seems like acquiring knowledge then, is really ‘remembering’ or ‘recollecting’ what you already knew.
what does socrates argument aim to show
- that the boy’s knowledge of geometry must be innate because he did not learn through experience, as the boy had never been taught geometry.
- There are two other reasons that could be given to support the conclusion that the boy’s knowledge can’t have come from experience:
a) the knowledge the boy gains - that to double a square, the length of the diagonal should be used as the side of the new square - applies to all squares, but the boy has certainly not experienced this truth in all squares.
b) his geometric truth applies to perfect squares - perfectly equal length sides, internal angles each being perfectly 90 degrees - but the square Socrates draws on the ground in the sand would not have been a perfect square. - Given that the boy’s knowledge applies to all perfect squares, but he has only experienced a limited number of imperfect squares, the boy’s knowledge must be innate.
Leibniz’s innatism and his argument based on necessary truths
P1: I have knowledge of necessary truths (e.g. mathematical truths like 2+2=4 or logical truths like the principle of sufficient reason (i.e. there’s a reason why everything is the case))
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 true in all possible cases and I haven’t experienced every possible case.
MC: Therefore it must be innate
- I have knowledge of truths that must be true in every possible case e.g. I know that everything has to have a cause. This can’t have come from experience, as I haven’t experienced every possible case. So this knowledge must be innate.
necessary truths
a truth that is true in all possible world e.g. 2+2 = 4, everything has a reason/cause
what does Leibniz argue
argues our knowledge of necessary truths must be innate. Necessary truths have to be true - they are true in all possible worlds. For example, 2+2=4 has to be true, and it is true in every possible world. They are contrasted with contingent truths - things that are true but could have been false, or things that are true in some possible worlds (e.g. I have 3 sisters is a contingent truth because it is true, but it could have been false: I could have had 3 brothers).
- our knowledge of these and all other necessary truths cannot have come from experience. This is because experience can only ever give me knowledge of the particular, limited number of things I have experienced, but necessary truths are true in every possible case, including cases I have not and will not experience.
- for example, if I knock over my coffee then I know that there was a reason why my coffee spilled. If I find a piece of glass in my tyre, I know there is a reason why it is flat. My experience justifies my knowing that each of these particular things has a reason why it is the case. But my experience cannot justify the claim that everything has a reason. Because I have not, and cannot, experience every possible thing having a reason. No matter how many particular examples I experience, I will never be justified in claiming that everything has a reason. But according to Leibniz, we do know that everything has a reason - we know the principle of sufficient reason. Given that this knowledge can’t have come from experience, it must be innate.
what is experience needed for according to Leibniz
- experience is needed to help to ‘uncover’ these truths and make us aware of them.
what is the analogy Leibniz uses for his necessary truths argument
- He uses an analogy to help to illustrate the conclusion of his argument that we can have truths in our mind that we’re not aware of yet.
- compares the mind to a block of veined marble. Certain kinds of marble have cracks or ‘veins’ running through them. This means that the sculptor can’t just carve out anything they want in it, as the marble would crack or break.
- The marble already contains certain shapes and figures within it and the sculptor needs to work to uncover the shape. For Leibniz, this is just like how ideas are there in the mind innately.
- in the sculptor case, the shape of the sculpture is in the marble, but work is needed to uncover that shape. In the same way, innate knowledge is in our minds, but we need to work - e.g. through education, experience - to uncover that knowledge that’s already there. As Leibniz himself explains:
descartes concept innatism and his trademark argument
P1: All of our ideas come from our senses, or they are invented by us or they are innate.
P2: My idea of God cannot have come from my senses (it has not come to me unexpectedly as other ideas from my senses do), and I could not have invented the idea myself (because I can’t add to or take away from the idea unlike other ideas I have invented).
C1:Therefore the idea of God is innate.
P3: The innate idea of God that I have is ‘a supremely perfect infinite being’.
P4: There must be at least as much reality in the cause as in the effect (and this applies to ideas just as it does to objects/events) (The ‘causal adequacy principle’)
C1: Therefore, I cannot be the cause of this idea as I am finite, and only God could be the cause of this idea.
C2: Therefore God must exist.
