A Discussion on Whether Ideas Are Innate

“Ideas are innate”, discuss Innatism is the theory that we are born with knowledge and ideas, meaning that from the moment we are born, we all start with certain innate ideas. Rene Descartes was one such believer in innate knowledge. Descartes was a skeptic and doubted everything. The reason Descartes did not doubt innate ideas was that some ideas had no satisfactory empirical origin, and so he thought there was no other explanation than that we are born with these ideas.

Descartes’ theory of innatism was that we all have clear and distinct knowledge of certain ideas. For example, Descartes argued that if one person thinks of a supremely perfect being, and another person thinks of a supremely perfect being that the two people must be thinking of the exact same thing. Descartes came to this conclusion because logically, we all have the same innate concept of infinity. Therefore, we must all be able to apply this concept to values. For example, two people who think of infinite greatness must be thinking of the same thing as long as they both understand the concept of infinity and the meaning of greatness.

However, I would argue that our concepts of things such as greatness are altered depending on our personal experience of the term, due to the restriction of language. One person for example may grow up in a county where greatness has a different meaning to another county.

John Locke disagreed completely with Descartes. Locke famously used the Latin phrase tabula rasa’, meaning blank slate, to describe the human mind when we are born.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified

Proficient in: Philosophical Theories

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The idea being that we can fill our mind with empirical observations throughout our lives. For Locke, everything we observe comes from empirical data, and more specifically from the primary properties of objects. Primary properties of objects are actually contained in the physical object and are perceived directly by our empirical senses. Primary properties include values such as: extension (volume), figure, motion, solidity and number. All information gained from our senses is from observing primary properties. There are also secondary properties which are deduced by us from the primary properties. Examples are: color, sound and motion. These properties do not physically exist but are instead interpreted by us.

Because of Locke’s blank slate theory, he believed that all rational knowledge is also gained from empirical experiences. Such as reading or problem solving. Locke stated, “Where there is no property, there is no injustice is a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid”. The first part of the statement is a general empirical phrase, and Locke compares this to Euclid (a Greek mathematical proof). Locke is essentially saying that all knowledge gained from empirical experience should be considered equally reliable. This included mathematics and logic because it too is gained from empirical experience.

Descartes differed from Locke and decided that the senses could not be trusted, he reminded Locke that we frequently mis-hear things or hallucinate. Locke’s method of counteracting this argument was that the distinction between primary and secondary observations explains the differences of interpretation of the world. For example, sound is a secondary property, so when we mishear something, we are misinterpreting primary properties of objects and creating false secondary properties in our minds.

Bertrand Russell also countered Locke’s point, how can you immediately observe an apple’s extension without first walking all the way around it? Otherwise you are perceiving only part of the object, and do not know its extension which Locke argued was a primary quality (immediately perceivable). Another philosopher. George Berkeley explains that you need both primary and secondary qualities to imagine something. One cannot imagine an object of only primary qualities, it is impossible. For example, it is impossible to imagine an orange with no color. In reality, one can only imagine a neutral color or a transparent color (the color of what is behind the object) – not a colorless object. I think this is a valid point from Berkeley, and he proves that both the primary and secondary properties of objects must be linked. This then disproves Locke’s defense that when we make a mistaken empirical observation that it is because we have misinterpreted the secondary properties of that object. Berkeley removes the barrier between Locke’s primary and secondary properties.

So, we are then left in a place where Descartes believes that we know we exist because we can doubt our own existence, but he also thinks that God must exist because of this. Locke instead disregards innatism and uses something else, probable knowledge. What Locke calls probable knowledge is what frequently may call common sense. There is no way that we can be sure of our empirical senses’ reliability, but we can use probable knowledge to be almost certain that our senses are somewhat trustworthy. Locke also argues that if we truly had innate ideas that all children would believe in God, and they often do not. There is no universally agreed idea of God, so Descartes approach that all knowledge of God is ‘clear and distinct’ is simply not true because otherwise there would be more clarity about what God is.

Descartes is however, guilty of circular reasoning. This particular example is often referred to as ‘The Cartesian Circle’. Essentially, Descartes assumed that God exists to prove a point, but his logic ends up that God exists. This means that once Descartes began his logical path to find out the truth, he was already doomed to fail because he was attempting to prove something he had already assumed. I believe that this disqualifies Descartes’ argument for empiricism.

The idea probable knowledge coming from experience is unacceptable to Descartes, just as the existence of innate ideas in the mind is inconceivable to Locke. However, I believe that Locke made many more meaningful observations that Descartes. It is also clear that Locke made mistakes in his work, but it still makes much more sense than Descartes approach which is guilty of circular reasoning. I think Locke was right that we use probable knowledge so frequently and rely on our senses to the extent that most of us are willing to admit that they are almost certainly real.