Initially, empiricist John Locke labelled the mind as a ‘blank slate’, claiming that all knowledge must be derived from experience. Inevitably, if Locke’s assumption is correct, it is highly unlikely that we possess innate knowledge. Locke dismissed the rationalists view of ‘innate knowledge’ and subsequently went on to claim that knowledge can only come from our senses, reflecting our senses and combining simple ideas to produce a complex idea. Locke’s claim appears well constructed. However, the emphasis placed on our senses may well be misguided. Descartes’ three waves of doubt highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of our senses. Also, the potential to gain knowledge only via sense experience appears far-fetched, due to it being virtually impossible to define a ‘simple idea’. There is a lack of clarity surrounding when an idea can actually be classified as a simple one. Hume would argue that it is possible to define simple ideas. Locke claimed that simple ideas are typically coherent and vivid, whilst complex ideas are not. Despite this, rationalists may well claim that it must be surely possible to have a complex idea which possesses the characteristics of a simple idea.
Also, empiricists typically believe that we can only know what our experience teaches us because they simply deny the existence of innate knowledge. One such person was the influential philosopher John Locke. He claimed that the mind started as a tabula rasa or a blank state. His justification for holding this view was that if there were such things as innate ideas they would have to undoubtedly be present at birth. The self evident maxims that Locke argued many people believed to be innate, such as, “Something cannot both be and not be at the same time” were stamped on the mind of everyone prior to birth. Locke understood these to be universally assented to- everyone would have the same innate knowledge.
However he argued through his, “children and idiots” argument that this in fact was not the case. Neither children nor idiots assented to such innate knowledge that should have been present from birth and therefore there was no such thing as innate knowledge, “nothing can be said to be in the mind which the mind was not yet conscious of”. Therefore Locke believed because there were no such things as innate knowledge all knowledge of which we have understanding must derive from sense experience.
However, Locke’s view that there could not be innate knowledge is however quite naive. Firstly he defines innate in such a way that it is very hard to argue against him, almost making his claim unfalsifiable and essentially meaningless. A more substantial definition might be “knowledge from which the content cannot be gained from sense experience”. In fact under this definition experience could be used almost as a trigger to uncover an innate idea. Leibniz’s statue of Hercules analogy uses this principle well. Leibniz was a philosopher who set out to criticise and provide a counter argument to Locke’s attack on innate ideas. Ultimately, Locke’s premise that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth came under fire from Leibniz. Leibniz believed that the mind was predisposed to certain innate ideas much like a block of marble was veined in such a manner that it was predisposed to the creation of the statue of Hercules. Moreover the argument that then follows is that experience merely chips away at the mind to unearth and gain use of the predisposed innate idea within. The content of the idea simply could not be gained from sense experience alone much like the statue of Hercules could not be created by a sculptor chipping away at a block of marble without the veins required for the sculpture of Hercules. The idea that innate knowledge is brought out by sense experience in almost a trigger manner goes against Locke’s’ definition of innate and shows up the flaws of his argument. It also shows another argument that we don’t know just what our experience teaches us but rather we have knowledge which is not directly known from experience but it helps bring the knowledge out.
In addition, Leibniz uses experience to ‘chip away’ at the mind to trigger an innate idea however reason could also be used to unearth ideas from within. One such Philosopher who believed that he used his own reason to uncover knowledge about his own mind was Renee Descartes. His cogito ergo sum argument meant that under conditions of universal doubt he could be sure that he existed because he was thinking. Moreover if he was being deceived in the real world he must have to exist to be deceived. Descartes realised these ideas clearly and distinctly and used this method of ‘clear and distinct ideas’ to guarantee truths about further knowledge. Descartes then used the ontological argument which he perceived clearly and distinctly to guarantee god’s existence and because god was no deceiver his clear and distinct ideas and the world around him must be true. This form of logic and reason allowed Descartes to at least believe that he had knowledge which did not come from sense experience.
However, just like Locke’s argument Descartes’ is actually also flaw ridden. He makes many leaps in judgement certainly at the end of his argument. Descartes finds himself in a Cartesian circle- where one side of the argument justifies the other yet the other justifies the original side. In this case god guarantees that clear and distinct ideas and the world outside are true, but because Descartes can perceive god clearly and distinctly god too must exist. With a circular loop of an argument the credibility of the argument drops because the justifications are simply not good enough. As a result of Descartes arguing simply in a circle the knowledge he claims to have gained is only refined to his own mind, he can know nothing of the outside world and is stuck in solipsism- (knowing his own mind) a poor position from which he cannot escape. Descartes alleged use of reason appears mis-used as he appears intent on justifying his stance and therefore introduces God, which he knows makes his argument far from verifiable.
Nevertheless, the strongest argument for the existence of innate knowledge appears to come from David Hume. In Hume’s fork he divides knowledge into two categories. ‘Relations of ideas’ and ‘Matters of Fact’. Relations of ideas are analytic pieces of knowledge-they are true by definition and they are arrived at by deductive arguments- the conclusion is guaranteed by the premises. An example of a relation of idea would be a triangle has three sides. This is a piece of knowledge as it is an analytic true, and is true by definition, yet it tells us nothing new about the world. These relations of ideas can tell us nothing of the world around us and as cannot be checked by experience. Experience cannot teach us them and only the most radical empiricist would argue against relations of ideas not being learnt through experience. Matters of fact on the other hand are synthetic (not true by definition) this is where the real empiricism vs. rationalism debate takes place as relations of ideas can tell us something new about the world. An example would be “The sun will rise tomorrow”
To conclude, there are two compelling arguments, when it comes to the discussion of the existence of ‘innate knowledge’. Descartes and Chomsky are integral in the bid to prove ‘innate knowledge, the cognito and universal grammar theories are both instrumental in highlighting the possibility of innate knowledge. The alleged presence of universal grammar would account for the reasoning behind the fact that animals are incapable of picking up the human language/ However, the argument for ‘innate knowledge’ is not without its flaws. The inability to explain why infants lack innate principles suggests that we do infact possess a blank slate at birth. This suggests ‘innate knowledge’ may simply be a ‘myth’ because by definition it should be present at birth and if it is not, then it cannot exist. Also, the universal grammar debate proposal is disputable, as this appears to be know-how, rather than propositional. Therefore, it is only fair to assume, that there is a possibility of innate knowledge. However, the likelihood of this will vary depending on whether or not the rationalists or empiricists provide the most compelling argument to the perceiver.
Junaid O’Balogun
Bibliography
1 AS Philosophy Student Guide (Mike Douglas)
2) Philosophy for AS (Michael Lacewig)
3)Understanding Philosophy for AS(Christopher Hamilton)
4)
5)
6) http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism6.htm