NORTH SOUTH UNIVERSITY

Course Title: Phi-101

Section-03

Submitted By:
Shanjida Jahan Sunny
ID: 1912889049

Date Of Submission : 26 April 2020

 Page |2

The Unacceptibility of the Existence of So-called Innate

Ideas to an Empiricist Philosopher

Introduction:

An innate idea is a concept or item of knowledge which is said to be universal to all humanity
that is, something people are born with rather than something people have learned through
experience.

The dissimilarity between rationalists and Empirical philosophers primarily deals about how
we can obtain knowledge. Rationalists actually advance their view in two ways. First, they
argue that there are cases where the content of our notions or knowledge exceeds the material
that sense practical involvement can serve. Secondly, they theorize of how reason in some
form or other serves that supplementary information about the world. Empirical philosophers
give harmonizing lines of thought. First, they advance reasons of how practical involvement
serves the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. Second,
Empirical philosophers attack the rationalists’ accounts of how reason is a source of notions
or knowledge

Description:

Our innate knowledge is not acquired through either sense practical involvement or intuition
and deduction. It comes of our nature. Practical involvements may activate a process by
which we bring this knowledge to notice, but the practical involvements do not serve us with
the knowledge itself. Following to some rationalists, we obtained the knowledge in an prior
existence. Following to others, God served us with it at creation. Yet others say it is of our
nature through natural selection.

Empiricist ideas about a precise theme discards the analogous form of the Intuition/Deduction
thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. As we have knowledge in the concept, our knowledge
is a posteriori, reliant on sense practical involvement. Empirical philosophers also refute the
implication of the analogous Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in this ploticular
area. We get practical involvementd by sense and it is the one and only source of ideas. They
 Page |3

discard the analogous form of the Superiority of Reason thesis. As the reason alone does not
give us any knowledge, it undoubtedly does not give us superior knowledge. Empirical
philosophers actually discard the Indispensability of Reason thesis, although they need not.
The Empiricists does not entail that of our empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can
only be attained, if at all, by practical involvement. Empirical philosophers may state, as
some do for some subjects, that the rationalists are exact to argue that practical involvement
cannot give us knowledge. Lastly they draw from this rationalist lesson is that we do not
know at all.

Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to Locke,
Berkeley and Hume, the British Empirical philosophers. Locke is not supportive to
rationalism in any form of the Innate Knowledge or Innate Concept theses, but he even so
adopts the Intuition/Deduction thesis about our knowledge of God’s existence. Descartes and
Locke have notably similar opinions on the nature of our ideas, even though Descartes takes
many to be innate, while Locke bonds them all to practical involvement. The
rationalist/empiricist sorting also inspires us to expect the philosophers on each side of the
split to have common research programs in areas on the beyond of epistemology.
Accordingly, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are falsely seen as applying a reason-centered
epistemology to a common metaphysical agenda and with each trying to progress on the
authorizations of the one before, while Locke, Berkeley and Hume are naively seen as
gradually discarding those metaphysical argues, with each consciously trying to progress on
the authorizations of his forerunners. It is also important to note that the rationalist/empiricist
division is not in-depth of the probable sources of knowledge. Someone might argue, for
example, that we can obtain knowledge in a ploticular area by a form of Divine exposure or
insight that is a product of neither reason nor sense practical involvement.

The Deduction thesis argues that we can learn some propositions by intuition and the more by
deduction. Many Empirical philosophers (e.g., Hume 1748) have been eager to accept the
thesis till it is restricted to propositions solely about the connections among our own notions.
They agree that we can know by intuition that our idea of God includes our concept of
omniscience. Just by testing the notions, we can logically grasp that the one includes the
other.

The Innate Knowledge thesis links the Intuition/Deduction thesis in stating that we have a
priori knowledge. But it does not propose intuition and deduction as the basis of that
 Page |4

knowledge. It takes priori knowledge to be plot of our rational nature. Practical involvement

may prompt our consciousness of this knowledge, but it does not serve us with it. The
knowledge is already there.

Empirical philosophers, and few rationalists, oppose the Innate Knowledge thesis in two main
ways. Firstly, they propose accounts of how sense of practical involvement or intuition and
deduction serve the knowledge that is argued to be innate. Secondly, they straightly criticize
the Innate Knowledge thesis itself. The classic assertion of this second line of attack is giveed
in Locke 1690. Locke

In innatism , some of notions have not been obtained from practical involvement. They are
instead plot of our rational make-up, and practical involvement simply prompts a process by
which we consciously grasp them. The main agenda motivating the rationalist should be
familiar by now: the content of some notions seems to outstrip anything we could have
obtained from practical involvement. By taking into account of Descartes’s argument that our
concept of God, as an infinitely flawless being, is innate. Our concept of God is not straightly
obtained in practical involvement, as ploticular tastes, sensations and mental images might
be. Its content is elsewhere what we could ever theorize by applying available mental
operations to what practical involvement straightly serves. From practical involvement, we
can obtain the concept of a being with finite amounts of various perfections, one, for
example, that is finitely knowledgeable, powerful and good. We cannot however move from
these empirical notions to the concept of a being of infinite perfection Descartes supplements
this argument by another. Not only is the content of our concept of God beyond what
practical involvement can serve, the concept is a prerequisite for our employment of the
concept of finite perfection obtained from practical involvement

The empiricist pholosophers argue that the innate thesis is without basis, as all our ideas can
be explained as derived from practical involvement—by focusing on difficulties in the
Empirical philosophers’ attempts to give such an explanation. Following to Locke, practical
involvement consists in external sensation and inner reflection. Our whole ideas are either
simple or complex, with the prior being received by us inactively in sensation or reflection
and the latter being built by the mind from simple materials through various mental actions. If
Locke is right, the idea is a simple one and should be passively received by the mind through
practical involvement.
 Page |5

The mind being every moment informed, by the senses, of the modification of those simple
ideas, it observes in things reflecting also on what passes within itself, and observing a
persistent change of its ideas considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its simple
ideas alteration.

Like philosophical debates actually, the rationalist/empiricist debate ultimately deals our
position in the world, in this case our position as rational inquirers. To what range do our
faculties of reason and practical involvement support our attempts to know and understand
our situation.

Locke claimed that we’re all born as a tabula rasa, or a blank slate. He also claimed that all
knowledge is gained through experience . He oposed the concept of innate ideas -- the
opinion that we’re born pre-loaded with certain information, like what’s good versus what’s
bad, or what is the nature of God. Locke assumed that we are born knowing nothing. And in
its place, all of our knowledge comes to us through experience by our sense But Locke was a
bit agreed with Descartes in the idea that, just for your senses tell you something, that doesn’t
mean you can trust it. On the whole, sometimes your senses give you false information, like
when you think you see or hear something that’s just not there. Descartes’ reply to this, of
course, was to just throw out all sense experience as an unreliable source of knowledge. But
Locke didn’t go that much.

In order to examine whether the senses precisely reflect the outside world, he introduced a
distinction between what he named the primary and secondary qualities of all things. Primary
qualities are defined such qualities that physical matters themselves have. They’re not in our
minds, Locke said they’re actually in the stuff. These primary qualities include things like
solidity, the density, weight, and mass of an object. And also extension - the height, depth,
and width that a certain thing has. He also added figure, or the shape of an object, as well as
mobility, which is this – whether it’s motionless or in motion. Therefore primary qualities,
Locke said, belong to the thing itself.

Locke claimed that the distinction between primary and secondary qualities explained the
dissimilarities that we all have about our perceptions of the outside world. Locke’s reasoning
was simple, even elegant, extracting a lot of clarifying power out of very few basic concepts.
As a result, it resonated with a lot people. And one person it resonated powerfully with was
the Irish philosopher George Berkeley. He was moved by Locke’s empiricist idea and took it
seriously, so seriously, in fact, that ended up using Locke’s own logic against him. He mainly
 Page |6

took empiricist ideas to its rational conclusion, dismantling the entire process of perception to
the point that he had to wonder whether anything existed at all.

Berkeley started by taking separately the distinction that Locke made between primary and
secondary qualities. Berkeley noticed that you don’t perceive some qualities of an object until
you are totally disregarding others. When you think about it, you can’t detect any of the
primary qualities without also considering the secondary ones.

Locke stated that secondary qualities are not objectively real. They can only be subjectively
seeming. But now, Berkeley has shown that the two are inseparably linked – you can’t have
one without the other. That means the primary qualities can’t be real either. They, too, are
just what your mind makes of things. There’s only perceptions that led Berkeley to a startling
conclusion.
 Page |7

Observation:

Locke raises the question of just what innate knowledge is. Ponticular examples of
knowledge are supposed to be in our minds as plot of our rational make-up, but how are they
“in our minds”? If the inference is that we all consciously have this knowledge, it is plainly
false. Propositions often given as instances of innate knowledge, even such reasonable
candidates as the principle that the same thing cannot both be and not be, are not deliberately
accepted by children and those with plain cognitive limitations. Followers of innate
knowledge might retort that some knowledge is innate in that we have the capacity to have it.
Locke challenges those opinions of the Innate Knowledge thesis to give an account of innate
knowledge that lets their position to be both true and interesting. A narrow explanation of
innateness faces counterexamples of rational individuals who do not satisfy its conditions. A
generous interpretation infers that all our knowledge, even that clearly served by practical
involvement, is innate.

Conclusion

If we consider, for example, our idea of causation. Descartes takes it to be innate. Locke
suggests an apparently circular account of how it is obtained from practical involvement or
experience. Hume’s empiricist explanation severely boundaries its content. Our idea of
causation is resulting from a feeling of expectation rooted in our practical involvements of the
constant conjunction of comparable causes and effects.
 Page |8

Bibliography:

 Adams, R., 1975, “Where Do Our Ideas Come From? Descartes vs Locke”,
reprinted in Stitch S. (ed.) Innate Ideas, Berkeley, CA: California University Press.

 Gorham, G., 2002, “Descartes on the Innateness of All Ideas,” Canadian Journal

of Philosophy, 32(3): 355–388.

 Boyle, D., 2009, Descartes on Innate Ideas, London: Continum.

 Stitch, S., 1975, Innate Ideas, Berkeley, CA: California University Press.