The two views with regards to innate knowledge that both John Locke and Plato hold, are quite different. Locke shares the view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, and that knowledge is obtained through experiences in one's life.

        John Locke was known as an Empiricist, and that meant he did not believe in innate knowledge.  Locke feels that we are born as a Tabula Rosa or blank state, and that through our experiences do we gain knowledge. Locke felt that knowledge comes from experiences and more specifically, sensation and reflection.  Examples of sensations would basically be the five senses, and reflections would be pure thoughts or feelings.  Furthermore, primary ideas were designated as being physical objects and were designated as bulk, size, motion, figure and number.  Secondary ideas were characterized as being in one’s head and were characterized as distinguishing sweetness, roughness or color.  One of the big discrepancies I found would have been Plato’s views on the advancement of science or technology.  By means of Empiricism, we are able to change our ideas over time as we determine that past theories are incorrect and are able to build upon new ideas, whereas Plato felt that innate knowledge was simply discovered and admit to having been wrong.  It seems to me that over time we develop newer and better theories on certain subject matters, as opposed to just simply being wrong about things and all of a sudden just seeing the light with regards to the newly discovered innate knowledge.  

        Plato felt that morals and ethics were innate, whereas Locke felt that experiences provide us with data to show us what is morally right and wrong.  I must say that I do not agree with Plato’s beliefs in any way.  I do not feel that we are simply born with all this knowledge and simply by being pointed in the proper direction, we are able to ascertain that which we were previously unaware of.  John Locke’s beliefs that by experiencing things we are able to understand and solve problems to me make much more sense.  For example if you took a healthy child and from the day they were born placed them in an enclosed room providing them with proper food for nourishment and growth, and you monitored that child over the years one would find that the child would have no aspects of innate knowledge.  If that child were held in that room for ten years, outside of the severe psychological problems that would result from being held in such isolation, the child would be completely ignorant with regards to