innatism vs empiricism Flashcards
what is this debate?
innatism says we have som innate knowledge and empiricism says we do not have any innate knowledge
what kind of innate knowledge is talked about?
innate propositional knowledge
- it is uncontroversial that babies are born with innate ability knowledge such as knowing how to breathe - both innatism and empiricism accept this
what did plato’s argue?
plato argues that all learning is a form of recalling knowledge from before we’re born. so in other words, we are born with innate knowledge but we just need to remember it
- plato uses Meno’s slave boy argument to prove this
what is Plato’s slave boy argument?
- socrates draws a square on the ground that is 2x2 feet
- meno’s slave agrees its area is 4 square feet
- socrates then draws another square on the ground that has an area of 8 square feet
- socrates then asks: what are the lengths of the sides
- meno’s slave boy incorrectly guesses 4 feet (but the area would be 16 square feet)
- but socrates asks meno’s slave a series of questions
- meno’s slave answers the questions correctly and realises that the sides of a square with an area of 8 square feet will be equal to the diagonal of the original 2x2 feet
why is meno’s slave boy an argument for innatism?
meno’s slave has never been taught geometry but the boy is still able to correctly answer socrates’ questions
- so plato argues that his correct knowledge must be innate
what did leibniz argue about innatism?
he argued that knowledge of necessary truths must be innate
- leibniz notes how a posteriori experience can only tell us about specific instances e.g. adding these 2 apples and these 2 apples gives us these 4 apples
but the underlying truth is much deeper than that - it’s not just that in this particular instance but in every instance that 2+2=4 because it is a necessary truth.
why can’t experience tell us about how things must be from leibniz?
even if you conduct 100000 experiments, you never know what will happen in the 100001 experiment.
- the experience of 100000 experiments does not prove that it is impossible for something different to happen next time.
however, it must be true that 2+2=4 in every instance, but this cannot come from experience because that can only tell us what is true, not what is necessarily true
what are contingent truths?
what IS the case but could have been false in another possible world
e.g. Paris is the capital of france
what are necessary truths?
what MUST be the case and is true in every possible world
e.g. 2+2=4
what is Locke’s argument against innate knowledge?
locke argues that if we had innate knowledge, then every human would have such knowledge - it would be universal.
- everyone would know the theorem of geometry that Meno’s slave realises in Plato’s example however ‘children and idiots’ do not possess such knowledge
therefore the knowledge is not innate
what is the response to locke’s argument against innate knowledge?
children and idiots do have the knowledge but it needs to be UNLOCKED through questions.
what is Locke’s argument against innate CONCEPTS?
if we lack innate concepts then we also lack innate knowledge, because propositional knowledge relies on concepts
- you can’t know that 1+1=2 without first having the concepts of 1 + and 2
- if locke succeeds in disproving the existence of innate concepts, he will also succeed in disproving the existence of innate knowledge.
what are locke’s two examples to reject the existence of innate concepts?
- observations of newborn babies suggests they do not have any concepts beyond those experienced in the womb
- god is often used as an example of an innate concept but babies do not have this concept and neither do athiest societies throughtout history
what is leibniz’s response to locke’s arguments against innate concepts?
leibniz agrees with locke that innate knowledge requires innate concepts but he argues that it’s possible to have innate concepts and not be conscious of them.
- some of leibniz’s own examples of innate concepts are logical concepts such as identity (e.g. a=a) and impossibility (e.g. it’s impossible for both a and not a to be true)
what is leibniz’s response to Locke’s baby example?
a baby cannot articulate these thoughts but this doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there - we innately know these concepts even if we cannot articulate them - and they are essential to all thought even if we cannot recognize that.
what is leibniz’s argument to Locke’s god example?
just because some people and societies lack a word for god 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 is beyond experience.
- the concept of god is the concept of an infinite being, but nothing in experience shows us a concept of infinity
what is locke’s tabula rasa argument?
locke argues that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa - a blank state - it contains no ideas, thoughts or concepts but instead knowledge comes from two types of experience:
- sensation: our sense perceptions - what we see, hear, taste, smell, etc…
- reflection: experience of our own minds - thinking, wanting, believing, etc…
what are locke’s simple concepts?
when i look at a clear sky, my sensation of blue might give me the simple concept of blueness. likewise when i’m outside in winter, my sensation of cold might give me the SIMPLE CONCEPT of coldness
what are Locke’s complex concepts
complex concepts are made up of the building blocks of simple concepts
- my concept of the ocean could consist of both the simple concepts of blue and cold
- pretty much everything is a complex concept made up of simple concepts to differing degrees e.g. a chair might consist of many simpler concepts and yet they all form the same thing - this chair
what are abstract ideas?
complex ideas can go beyond specific instances of things to form abstract ideas.
- chair 1 may be wooden and have 4 legs but chair 2 may be metal and have 3 legs and chair 3 may have a red stool
- we can form a GENERAL concept of chair by ignoring the irrelevent features of each chair and abstracting the features common to all the individual chairs
how can we form abstract concepts?
abstract concepts such as beauty or justice can be formed by abstracting from experience
- we see a beautiful lake or person and over time we abstract the common features from these experiences to form the abstract concept of beauty
how are simple, complex and abstract ideas an argument against innatism?
locke claims all concepts are derived from experience in some way and so are not innate
