Innatism and Tabula Rasa Flashcards
Innatism
The view that we have knowledge / concepts that exist innately within us and we can access these concepts / truths.
The claim that we are born with knowledge, meaning that is acquired before experience a priori, which can be revealed through reason. Rationalists such as Plato and Leibniz believe in this theory where as Empiricists do not.
Plato’s argument for Innatism (‘slave boy’ argument)
Plato shows how Meno’s slave is able to understand a geometry proof…
I know P
This knowledge is either based on experience or it is innate. It cannot be based on experience because the lines drawn in the sand are not perfect, and the knowledge that the slave boy learns applies to perfect squares.
Also, he comes to know, from just one example, a proposition that he realises is necessarily true of all possible sets of squares.
Leibniz’s argument for Innatism (argument based on necessary truths)
Our knowledge of maths / geometry / logic and Causation is necessarily and universally true and this would not be possible if my knowledge were based on my limited experience.
Everything comes from the senses other than what was already in the mind (innate structures)
Our mind already has these capacities by being chipped away by sensory stimulus
Leibniz claims that the human mind could gain knowledge through reason alone, which reveal innate ‘principles’. Leibniz claimed that innate principles do not exist within us fully formed at birth.
MARBLE ANALOGY - He gives the analogy that our mind is like a block of marble with veins running through it. Like how the marble does not yet contain the fully formed statue but has the inclination or tendency to take shape, our minds are structured so that certain principles will appear once prompted by the senses.
empiricist response to innatism - Locke’s lack of universal agreement
If an item of knowledge was innate, it would be universal but we know that these universal truths do not exist. So called ‘Innate’ knowledge doesn’t apply to children and idiots! (like Plato’s geometry proof)
Leibniz response to Locke’s lack of universal agreement
(Marble Analogy)
There are universal truths in our minds, they just have not been uncovered. Locke has made a mistake to assume that these truths must be uncovered in order to be there!
Locke’s response to Leibniz Marble Analogy: It is near a contradiction to say that we have a piece of knowledge in our minds that we cannot discover, and cannot know about. But it exists. To say that ‘i know X’, but i do not know that i know X.
empiricist response to innatism - Locke’s argument against Innate concept of causation
Our view of causation come from experiencing causation. We see that A causes B because we repeatedly experience A causing B!
Locke examples to reject the existence of innate concepts
Observation of newborn babies suggests they do not have any concepts beyond those experienced in the womb (e.g. the concepts of warmth or pain)
God is often used as an example of an innate concept (as seen in Descartes’ trademark argument) but babies do not have this concept. Further, there have been many atheist societies throughout history that did not have the concept of God.
Leibniz response to Locke on the Innate concept of Causation
I need the concepts of causation to actually understand how cause an effect works. Otherwise i just wouldn’t be able to understand what i am experiencing.
We innately know these concepts - even if we can’t articulate them - and they are essential to all thought, whether we consciously recognise them or not. Over time, we learn to recognise these concepts and make them explicit, but they were always there in the mind.
Empiricist response to innatism - Hume’s argument against the Innate concept of God
The idea of God is created from our experiences of the world, we know love, power and knowledge and we can continuously add to these concepts to create a infinitely powerful ‘God’.
Leibniz response to Hume on the innate concept of God
The concept of God is the concept of an infinite being, but nothing in experience shows us this concept of infinity. This argument relies on the concept of infinity, which we cannot actually experience. Our understanding of love is finite and conditional, because we cannot actually experience infinity the concept of God cannot be from experience!
just because some people and societies may lack a word for ‘God’, this doesn’t mean they lack the concept. It may take experience to consciously develop the concept of God, but the concept itself can’t come from experience because it goes beyond experience.
Empiricist response to innatism - ‘Innate’ Knowledge is just analytic, not innate
Necessary truths are a priori but analytic, we acquire the concepts involved from experience then in understanding the concept we come to know analytic necessary truths.
Innatist response that knowledge is just analytic, not innate
Maths would be obvious to us if it was analytic, the truths of geometry and maths are clearly not. There is disagreement in mathematics, it is not part of the definition of ‘2’ that anything is true of it.
Further response that innate knowledge is innate
Just because it is not obvious to us that doesn’t mean that it is not analytic. Pythagoras theorem is an analytic truth that is clearly not obvious to us.
Empiricist response to innatism - the mind as a ‘tabula rasa’
Empiricists such as Locke claim that the mind is born as a ‘blank slate’ being Tabula Rasa and therefore all ideas and concepts are derived from experience: all knowledge is a posteriori.
simple and complex concepts - This argument relies on Ockham’s Razor, whereby out of the two competing theories of Innatism and the Mind as Tabula Rasa, the Mind of Tabula Rasa is the best hypothesis as it is the simplest one.
Locke argues that knowledge comes from two types of experience…
Sensation: Our sense perceptions - what we see, hear, smell, taste, etc.
Reflection: Experience of our own minds - thinking, wanting, believing etc.
Explain the formation of impressions and concepts using the theory that the mind is born Tabula Rasa
Empiricists Locke and Hume argue that our minds receive impressions from the senses and that these are copied into our ideas and concepts. This is what allows us to think of things that are not present in our senses such as being able to taste cheese without eating anything. These ‘simple’ ideas formed from ‘simple’ impressions can be combined to create ‘complex’ ideas that can be caused by ‘complex’ impressions. For example, the idea of a unicorn can be formed from the two simple ideas of a horse and a horn. Therefore, the theory of innate ideas is redundant.
leibniz counter argument to locke’s tabula rasa
appeal to the different kids of existing mental contents in order to process experience or perceive things. even if we gain all our knowledge from experience the mind itself has to already exist. (eg a dog and a human baby can have the same experience but process it differently because their mind has to already exist, therefore no tabula rasa)
Explain the criticism of the Mind as Tabula Rasa that Not All Ideas come from Impressions
The theory that the mind is born Tabula Rasa states that the mind is a ‘blank slate’ of which ideas and concepts are formed through the experience of simple impressions that can combine to form ‘complex’ ideas.
However, not all concepts and ideas have to stem from ‘simple’ impressions. For instance, the creation of a new shade of blue merging shades of blue I already know is not a simple idea stemming from a simple impression.
Rational concepts such as ‘sameness’ do not have a corresponding sense that can create an impression and so it is not plausible to state that the concept is derived from experience.
