214 A Critical History of Western Philosophy

2.10A. Method
Descartes postulatedthe free enquiry into the philosophical domain, Instead of
submitting to the authorities, he tells us, to bring everything to the bar of reason.
Reason, after years of bondage, comes to her own. Faith in religion and moral
goodness, he does not discard but he supplies them the better and more stable
ground of reason. In this acceptance of the true of Magna Charta of thought he was
followed by all the moderners. Later on the same necessity of free thought was
clearly laid down by Kant.
In this method Descartes laid down that knowledge to be obtained must be
certain, necessary and universal. This model of knowledge is clearly found in
mathematics. Thus the real philosophical method should be cast in the form of
mathematics, especially Geometry. This emphasis on mathematics led to Geo-
metrical method ofSpinoza and influenced the methodology ofLeibnitz and Kant.
Even the empiricists Locke, Berkeley and Hume could not ignore the claim of
mathematics to be the model of knowledge. However, the method of Descartes was
carried on through abstraction. It established the cogito by rejecting what cannot
be sure and certain. This successive negation of the inessential factors was
considered to be most important by Spinoza who laid down that every determina-
tion is negation with frightful result. Besides, the deductive aspect of mathematical
reasoning was emphasized by Spinoza and Leibnitz and even Locke could not reject
this part of reasoning.

2.10B. Rationalism
Descartes has been a real initiator of modem rationalism. First, as mentioned before
he laid down that reason is the sole arbiter of philosophical dispute. In this he was
followed not only by Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant but also by the empiricists Locke,
Berkeley and Hume.
However, Descartes is the founder of rationalism in its distinguishing feature
by pointing out that real, universal and necessary knowledge is found in innate ideas
alone. This doctrine of innate ideas was greatly opposed by Locke and then it was
modified by Leibnitz, and, Kant finally shaped the whole controversy into sharper
lines. Hence a brief reference to the Descartes' view will not be out of place.
Innate ideas: No amount of sense-experience can give us universal knowledge
for necessity the former is particular. As such the universal principle is supplied
by the mind to the sense data. Now divested of the inadequate and mediaeval
expression, the doctrine of innate ideas really mearrs that mind is not totally
receptive but is also active. It supplies the active formative principles of knowledge.
In this broad and sympathetic interpretation of innate ideas, Descartes seems to be
esse~tially correct. At least Kant in the most characteristic ways points that general
principles and concepts are inherent contribution of the mind to the sense-data.
However, even the most sympathetic interpretation would point out that Descartes
12. Emgiricism . . ..
Empiricism is that eJ,Jistemologital posjnon according to which the
ultimate source of our. ideas is experience, The word 'experience' is of
Greek origin and excludes here mysticaT experience or intuition.
Beginning with the Carvakas of ancient India and the Sophists of early
Greece, empiricism has a long history extending upto the pragmatists and
ogical positivists of the current times. It has assumed more or less
different forms as the basis of different metaphysical systems. But its
general position is that all our elements of knowledge are derived from and
reducible to sensations, internal or external. The internal sensations are
hose of thinking, {eelingaod willing, and the external sensations are those
of external objects, i.e., material bodies .. or their qualities such as size.
shape, colour, taste and smell. '
The empiricist argues that the rationalist's belief in innate ide'as is
mistaken. Reasoning may tell us what follows from 'X exists' and thus
extend our knowledge. Bui by itself it cannot say whether X in fact exists.
The role of reason is one of systematising sensory elements and extending
knowledge by logical inferences from them. but it is never a source of
ideas, Even the so-called self-evident principles, such as the principles of .
identity and contradiction, and the definitions and axioms of mathematics
and logic are ultimately of an empirical origin. ".. .
While rationalism allies philosophy to mathematics and accepts its
deductive method, empiricism allies philosophy to natural sciences like
physics and biology and considers that the proper method of philosophy is
some fOnTIof induction. Knowledge is to be attained by' observation of
facts. and by an analysis of and reflection on the truths of experience, .

An Outline of Philosopy-7 81
 AN OUTLINE OF PHILOSOPHY

13. Some great empiricists: Locke

[Empiricism in modern philosophy 'finds an exponent inits very forerunner. Francis
,Bacon (1561·1662). who made the first vigorous advocacy for adoption of the inductive
method in science and philosophy. Hobbes (1588·1679) applies, the empirical method with
• certain leanings towards rationalism. but in Locke (1632-1704) empiricism attains the status
of a systematically pursued and full-fledged empistemology. Locke is followed by Berkeley
( 1685·1753) and Hume (1711-1776), and then the empirical lineagepasses on to recent times
through such great philosophers as J.S,Mill (1806.1873).) '. •

The empiricism of John Locke (expounded in his -work, An Eassy,

Concerning Human Understanding+uzs two aspects; negative and positive.
Negatively. Locke tries to refute the Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas; and,
positively, he propounds his own theory that allideas are empirical.

His arguments against the doctrine of'innate ideas:

(I) If there were innate ideas they must have been universal and
present in all minds in the same form. But that is not the case. First,
numberless people-e.g.; children, savages, idiots and illiterate
persons-are quite unaware of the so-called innate ideas, such as the ideas
of causality. infinity. eternity and God. Secondly, the ideas of God,
morality, laws of thought, etc., assume different. forms in different
societies. countries and ages., For some, God is much like a man; for
others. God is identical with nature. and so on. '
(2) On the other hand, universality and sameness are themselves no
sufficient proof of innateness. The ideas of the quadrupedness of dogs and
the whiteness of milk. for example, are universal and identical.for all. but
they lire not innate. Again; universallyacceptedideas.may he wrong. Once
it was universally believed that the earth is flat and the sun moves round
the. earth. ' '.
(3) The so-called innate ideas are in fact derived from experience. The
universality' of principles can be explained as a result of inductive
generalisation. Particular facts are known long before the general principles;
whereas. if they were innate, the reverse would have been the case.
[The child, for example, knows of the sweetness of sugar and the "';dness of roses long
, -
before he knows the law of ~ontradiction, Rather. these laws result 'from his zeneralisation
,

. from experience. He knows first thatsweet is sweet and is not bitter, and then inductively
arrives at the laws of identity and contradiction.]
Locke's positive theory :
. .According to Locke, the mind at birth is like a tabula rasa (blank
. tablet) on which experience gradually writes its impressions. Experience is
of two types: 'sensation' and 'reflection". By sensation we perceive the

82
 SOl'RCES OF KNOWLEDGE

external objects through our senses-organs: by reflection we perceive our

internal states: Sensation is prior to reflection. We reflect only when our
mind is stocked with sensations. 'Th"ere is nothing in the intellect", says
Locke. "which was not previously in the senses." .
The mind is passive in receiving sensations, but active in dealing with
them. The ideas furnished by experience ~e all about the qualities of things
and are simple. The mind, forms 'complex' ideas such' as those of'
'substance' and 'cause and effect' out of simple ideas by relating,
comparing and abstracting from them. Obviously, Locke recognizes a
central role of mind in our development of knowledge. He limits his
empiricism by leaving room for 'intuition' and 'demonstration' (9r
inference). He says that our certainty about theexistance of external objects
is an inference from the facts of sensation; We have Intuitive certainty of
our own minds, anddemonstrative certainty of the existence of God.
 "'

Rene Descartes 215

was rather vague in his doctrine of innate ideas. Descartes at least recognised the
dual role of innate ideas.
(i) Since the essence of the mind is consciousness or thought so there are certain
ideas which belong to the mind alone. Specially the innate ideas are characterised
by clearness and distinctness. In this sense innate ideas meant pure and abstract
thoughts. The best example ofthis is the innate idea of God defining His characters
as infinite, perfect etc.
(ii) However, Descartes was also obliged to extend the innateness to sense ideas
as well. First, he could not find their place in the mental series as they seemed to
be caused by something external to the mind. But afterwards, he had to yield. The
sense experience of colour, taste, etc. are not in objects and therefore, they belong
to the psychical existence. The external stimulus at most serves the function of
release mechanism, exciting the sense-organs and consequently through the pineal
gland the soul to form sense-experience. Accordingly, Descartes had to concede
even though reluctantly that the ideas of sense must be natural to the mind, i.e.
innate. Upon the second view, then instead of the innate ideas forming a special
class, innateness becomes characteristic of every idea. At least this was developed
in the philosophy of Leibnitz, as the former interpretation of innate ideas as the
formative principle of knowledge was developed by Kant.
In any case the doctrine of innate ideas was suggestive of future development
in the modem stream of thought. There is yet another element in the Cartesian
rationalism of modern development. This element consists in showing that certain
knowledge is found in the analysis of self-consciousness. In simple language it
amounts to this that the reality can be best interpreted on the analogy ofthe reality
of self. The Cogito ergo sum of Descartes led Leibnitz to define the monads in terms
....
of the self. This finally led in Kant and the subsequent idealists to the statement
that the mind is the legislator to things. As a matter of fact in-spite of dualism
Descartes really had an idealistic leaning inasmuch as he laid down that the mind
alone can be known with certainty and the matter can be known only indirectly
through the veracity of God. Concerning this point Russell in his History of
Philosophy writes, "There is thus, in all philosophy derived from Descartes, a
tendency to subjectivism, and to regarding matter as something onl y knowable, if
at all, by inference from what is known of mind." (p. 586)
5.04. Refutation ofInnate Ideas
In his polemic against the doctrine of innate ideas Locke was not refuting any
particular author. No doubt Descartes had made use of the term 'innate ideas' but
he used them for a natural bias or predisposition to their formation like an inherited
tendency to certain diseases. Now Locke admits the presence of natural faculties
but not of innate ideas. Thus he refuted a doctrine of innate ideas only to make his
own position clear by contrast.
By innate ideas, Locke understands, ideas which the mind simply finds in itself,
as distinguished from those ideas which it receives from outside or those which it
creates within itself. Such ideas were supposed to have a mysterious origin. They'
were supposed to be directly imprinted on the mind by God and as such enjoyed
certainty and authority which no other ideas could claim. Thus they put forth their
claims on the extraneous support of an incomprehensible source. They also rested
on universality as the indubitable test of their innateness. The doctrine of innate
ideas tended to make an appeal to authority instead of making an appeal to reason.
Hence the doctrine, according to Locke, formed a hindrance in the path of free
inquiry. In his refutation of innate ideas he relied on the assumption that true
knowledge is found by the active employment of human faculties, in the
consideration of things.
The supporters of the innate ideas never made a catalogue of innate ideas, nor
could give any satisfactory criterion of noting them. However they refer to the
universality as the mark of innateness. We see that, first, it cannot be proved and
secondly, universality can be explained in other ways besides innateness.
If by innate ideas are meant, says Locke, that certain principles are present in
the mind from birth, then no such principles are found. The laws of contradiction
and identity and the like are supposed to be innate but no such ideas are found in
the mind of the insane, idiots and children. Instead of being present from the very
beginning, they are the last fruit of knowledge. But the defenders of the innate ideas
may point out that the ideas may be in the mind of children, the insane or idiot but
they may not be recognised by them. Locke held with Descartes that the essence
of mind is consciousness and nothing in the mind can be unconscious. Therefore,
268 A Critical History of Western Philosophy

he re.plied to this possible objection thus. It seems "to !TIenear a contradiction to

say, that there are truths imprinted on the soul which it perceives or understands
not. ... To say, a notion is imprinted on the mind, and yet at the same time to say.
that the mind is ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it, is to make this
impression nothing".
The criticism of the innate principles of cognition can be easily extended to
moral and religious ideas. There is hardly one single moral principle which is
universally admitted by all nations. On the other hand, there is hardly any moral
principle the contrary of which has not been regarded as virtue. Stealing and murder
have been regarded as virtues by the Spartans, the head-hunters and others. Besides,
even amongst the civilized people, 'Robberies, murders, rapes are the sports of men
set at liberty from punishment and censure". Again, the so-called morals require
proof and are not self-evident innate principles.
At this juncture, it might be held that the idea of God must be innate. But the
idea of God is no more universal than other ideas just now examined. Besides, this
idea is just as relative, various and conflicting as others. And, again, what to speak
of single individuals there are whole tribes without the idea of God.
Thus Locke concludes that no ideas are innate as none are universal. But again,
from the universality of any idea we cannot prove its innateness. Ideas may be
universal without being innate. For example, everybody has the idea (If the sua, fire
and heat and yet nobody regards them innate.
Locke's dilemmatic argument: If the upholders of the innate ideas maintain
that innate ideas are only implicitly present in the mind and become explicit in the
course of time, then this is true of all other ideas and as such innate ideas cease
to be unique. "I think nobody who reads my book can doubt that I spoke only of
innate ideas and not of innate powers." In this sense all ideas are innate for even
the ideas of fire, sun and heat are acquired only because we have the innate capacity
of acquiring them. Thus Locke submits this dilemma? "Either the theory signifies
that certain ideas and principles are explicitly present from the earliest period of
consciousness, or it merely asserts the existence of a general capacity for
knowledge. In the former case, it is admittedly false. In the latter case, it is totally
unable to support the theory of certainty which has been reared upon it."