Embedded Files
Background
Background
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was first published in 1689. It is all about what it means to be a person in the world -a knowing and understanding being. In it, he describes how (he argues) human beings are born with no knowledge, but we acquire it through experience during our lives —hence the book became perhaps the archetypal expression of Empiricism. It influenced many philosophers who came afterwards, including George Berkeley and David Hume, and solidified the framework for philosophical debate right up until today.
Locke was a protestant (as opposed to Descartes, who was catholic). One of his major motivations was advocating for religious freedom, liberty, and toleration. In book I, his main aim was to show that you’ve no right to be absolutist about anything - everything can be argued with. The concept of a universal law of universal knowledge threatens liberty because, if there were such a thing, then there would be some absolute measure of right and wrong against which we could be judged. Locke wants to reject this.
The concept of innate knowledge
The concept of innate knowledge
There was a thread of philosophy, running from Pythagoras and Plato through to Descartes that seemed to think that we were born with access to certain knowledge - namely knowledge and understanding of mathematics, logic, and morality. With maths, for example, it seems too absurd to reject the idea that 1+1=2. Surely everyone must agree to that, no?
This gave rise to the idea that some knowledge is universal - i.e. everyone must, on seeing it (or on being reminded of it) recognise and know that it is true. This gives us the following claim:
Innate knowledge of x exists, if and only if, there is universal agreement concerning x.
In other words, universal agreement is a sufficient and necessary condition of innate knowledge. i.e. If innate knowledge exists, both the following are true:
A. If there is universal agreement, then there is innate knowledge
B. If there is innate knowledge, then there is universal agreement
The Blank Slate argument
The Blank Slate argument
Firstly, Locke rejects claim A. Universal agreement would be a sufficient condition for innate knowledge, only if there were no other explanation for it. I.e. why else would everyone agree that 1+1=2?
Well Locke argues that there is a better explanation - he thinks that it would be perfectly possible (at least in principle) that everyone agrees to something because they have learnt it through experience. According to his vision, information from the senses impresses ideas upon a blank sheet of paper. This is nowadays known as the blank slate theory.
If (A) universal agreement were a sufficient condition for innate knowledge then there could not be any other better explanation,
but there is a better explanation (information from the senses, impressing ideas upon a ‘blank slate’) then this is not true.
∴ Universal agreement is not a sufficient condition for innate knowledge.
∴ (A) is not true
There is no universal agreement
There is no universal agreement
Locke accepts claim (B) however, that if there is innate knowledge, then there must be universal agreement about it.
His issue with this claim is that no such agreement exists.
There is no universal agreement
People argue over moral laws (and rightly so, he thinks), not everyone grasps the truth of mathematics (e.g. children)
∴ there is no such thing as innate knowledge
Locke’s counters to potential objections
Locke’s counters to potential objections
It may be objected that innate knowledge can be explained in terms of ‘capacities’ but this is an improper way of speaking that does not distinguish between knowledge and instincts.
It may be objected that innate knowledge is ‘latent’ but this amounts a near contradiction –you have the knowledge and you do not have the knowledge.
Tasks
Tasks
Explain why Locke may have wanted to disprove the idea of innate knowledge.
Explain the concept of innate knowledge that Locke was arguing against.
Why did Locke think that universal agreement was not a sufficient condition of innate knowledge?
Why did Locke think that there was no evidence of innate knowledge?
Explain one possible objection to Locke’s position.
Do you agree with Locke? Explain your answer.
Page updated
Report abuse