Innatism Flashcards
What is empiricism
Empiricism is the view that all knowledge comes from experience (i.e our five senses) and we are not born with any pre-existing knowledge.
What is rationalism
rationalism is the view that all knowledge is gained through reason and we are not born with preexisting knowledge. For instance, we can gain knowledge about geometry just by attending to the topic with thought.
What is innatism
innatism is the view that our minds come with a ready store of knowledge since birth which is usually revealed through reason.
Plato’s argument for innatism
Plato demonstrates through Meno’s slave how innate ideas can be realised through reason. The salve boy doesn’t actually learn anything, rather socrates words help him recall the innate knowledge which he already knew.
1) the slave boy has no prior knowledge concerning geometry
2) socrates only questions the boy and does not teach him anything
3) by the end of the questioning, the slave boy has gained some eternal truth about geometry
4) this eternal truth was not derived from the boy’s prior experience or from socrates
5) this eternal truth must have existed innately in the boy to begin with
the response to plato’s argument for innatism that the slave boy is using reason rather than memory.
this issue targets premise 4 of platos argument and Staes that the slave boy doesn’t necessarily have grasped some notion of eternal truth about geometry by regaining lost memories (innate ideas) but could’ve rather be done by memory. it is completely plausible that the slave boy grasped a more complex idea of geometry by reasoning with more simple ideas about the certain features of lines and shapes. these features can have been derived from experience. if the boy is simply using his reason plus some guidance from socrates, then this would not count as evidence for innate knowledge.
Leibniz’s argument for innatism from necessary truths
Leibniz distinguishes between general truths such as ‘the sun will rise everyday’ which can be known through the senses (seeing the sun rise everyday) but is not a necessary truth because the sun may not rise some day. But necessary truths such as 1+1=2 which will always be the case and can only be know through reason with the application of principles innate to us.
1) the senses only reveal instances of general truths
2) the senses cannot reveal the necessity of some general truths
3) our minds can see the necessity of some general truths
4) our ability to see the necessity of some general truths is not derived from our senses but is based on innate principles
Locke’s argument against innatism on there being no universal assent
Locke was an empiricist who believed that there was no innate knowledge and that all knowledge gained is from sense experience. Locke notes that a commonly believed indicator for the existence of innate ideas was that it was universally held by everyone. His argument attacks this claim.
1) any innate idea, X, if exists, must be universally held
2) children and idiots do not have an idea of X
3) if an idea is held in the mind then you must be aware of it (transparency argument)
4) so X is not universally held
5) therefore X is not innate
reply to Locke’s argument against innatism on there being no universal assent
Leibniz targets premise two of Lockes argument which postulates that innate ideas are not held by children and idiots. Leibniz points out that just because they cannot directly communicate such ideas, it does not mean that they don’t have them. For instance, infants commonly apply the law of non contradiction (a commonly thought innate idea that states something cannot be Y and not be Y at the same time) in their daily live. For instance, a baby is aware that their teddy bear cannot be in their hand and in the loft at the same time. Such applications of innate ideas clearly show that they are held within children and idiots, therefore demonstrating that innate ideas are indeed universally held.
Lockes argument against innatism from the transparency of ideas
a common objection for innatism is that innate ideas cannot exist because if they did, then everyone would know of them since birth as they are knowledge that we possess from the very beginning. A common innatist reply is that everyone does have innate ideas but some are just not aware of them yet.
Locke targets this reply by postulating the impossibility of having an idea while not being aware of it. Locke explains that our minds are ‘transparent’ and whatever ideas that we possess must have been ‘perceived’ by the mind at least once. It seems absurd to have never had the idea but for it to be in your mind but not known. Locke says that it would be like having a pain in your mind that you have never felt.
therefore Locke disproves the notion that innate ideas can be held in the mind while the mind in unaware of it. Therefore innate ideas are not universal and therefore do not exist.
reply to Lockes argument against innatism from the transparency of ideas
Leibniz puts forward the idea that it is possible for ideas to be present in the mind without being aware of them - some sort of subconscious idea. An example that can be used to prove this point is the possibility of passively listening to a song on the radio. although you are not consciously aware that you have absorbed the song into your mind and you are unable to recall such a song, you are still able to recognise it if it plays again. in this way, you are unaware of the song in your mind until presented with the correct stimulus. This can be applied to innate ideas, as it proves we are capable of having ideas we are not aware of but can be uncovered with the correct stimulus. Therefore innate ideas are not impossible as Locke would suggest.
the argument against innatism that we cannot distinguish between innate ideas from other ideas
the innatist argues that innate ideas are with us since birth but can remain unknown until activated by the right stimulus. However, this approach would be true of all knowledge - there is nothing to distinguish between innate ideas that are activated by the correct sense stimulus and regular knowledge that is simply gained through sense experience. By using the logic of the innatist, my idea of blue could technically have been with me since birth and activated by the correct stimulus of seeing blue. This would virtually make everything an account of innate knowledge. This is an issue as even the innatist would feel absurd to claim every account of knowledge is innate. Furthermore, it shows that the very concept of innate ideas are redundant because it seems like there is no need for it if everything simply comes down to being unlocked or gained through sense experience as the empiricist would suggest
reply to the argument against innatism that we cannot distinguish between innate ideas and other ideas
Leibniz thinks that there is a way to distinguish innate ideas from other ideas even though they both have an aspect of needing sense experience to either gain or activate it. the differentiating factor is that innate ideas are true in a different way - they are necessarily true.
Leibniz claims that although young children are not aware of complex mathematical truths, when they do become aware of it through the correct stimulus, there is some innate faculty in their minds that make them recognise it as a necessary truth. this is not the same for ideas that are simply gained from sense experience and are not innate. Therefore, innatism is not a redundant theory as innate ideas are distinct from non-innate ideas.
Explain the mind as a tabula rasa
Lockes main argument against innatism is his theory of the mind as a tabula rasa - that out minds are born a blank slate which impressions of ideas are made through sense experience. If Locke can prove that everything can be known through sense experience, then it would render innatism an unnecessary theory.
Locke’s tabula rasa theory relies on Ockham’s razor which postulates that we should always follow the most simple explanation. Locke thinks that postulating the notion of innate ideas simply adds an extra step to explaining how we gain knowledge. For instance:
a) we are born with an innate idea of mathematical principles which are unlocked through reason
b) we learn about mathematical principles through experience
Locke believes that we shouldn’t believe in A because B is a more simpler approach as God or Nature would choose such a path.
explain the distinction between impressions and ideas
Locke argues that our mind receives impressions from the senses and that these impressions can then be copied into ideas. these ideas allow us to then think about things that are not present to our senses. For instance, after receiving the impression of blue, I can think about the idea of blue without my senses sensing it.
Locke makes the further distinction that our ideas can combine to create complex ideas which may have no corresponding impression. for instance, the complex idea of a unicorn is derived from simple ideas of horns and horses which do have impressions.
Issue with the tabular rasa: not all simple ideas come from impressions
The tabula rasa as an impericist theory states that we cannot form an idea without the source of an impression (our senses). However, the missing shade of blue scenario suggests otherwise. The subject is able to have an idea of the missing shade of blue without having any impression of it. This seems to suggest not all ideas need in impression. If this is true then the tabula rasa seems to have gone wrong. Perhaps innatism offers a better explanation as perhaps the missing shade of blue is derived from some innate faculty within us.
issue with the tabula rasa: not all complex ideas relate to the tabula rasa
although there are some complex ideas such as the unicorn which we can trace back to simple ideas of horses and horns which link to impressions, not all complex ideas seem to operate in such a manner. For instance, with the complex idea of justice, it seems impossible to relate it to other sets of ideas and eventually too some impressions that have given use such an idea. there seems to be no sense that are linked to our concept of justice since it cannot be represented in such things as sight and smell. Sure, one may claim to have sight of a court room and a judge, yet it would be absurd to admit such a perception lead to our concept of justice. Therefore it seems like the tabula rasa cannot explain where all of our knowdlege comes from and therefore it fails as a theory for empiricism. Perhaps innatism can better explain it simply as an innate idea we have had since birth.
issue with the tabula rasa: some concepts have to exist in the mind before sense impressions for them to be properly experienced
The tabula rasa states that all knowledge is gained through impressions which are sense experiences. However, a common belief is that some concepts or ideas are needed innately for us to be able to understand and interpret such sensual experiences. If we did not have such concepts, the sensual experiences would be meaningless to us. However, if these concepts exist, then they do not originate from impressions and therefore the tabula rasa as a theory for empiricism fails. it rather supports the idea that we are born with innate concepts.
