VERSUS INNATE PRINCIPLES
John Locke’s Theory of Knowledge Versus Innate Principles
If there was one philosopher who attempted to elaborate on the inception of knowledge and on how it is conceived in the human mind, it was John Locke. He was “born on August 29, 1632, in Wrington, Somerset, England” (Bio.com n.d.). His adeptness in sciences influenced him to pursue medical studies at the University of Oxford; while at the same time, he ventured into the field of Philosophy where he became known for his writings on varied topics, like “political philosophy, epistemology, and education” (Bio.com n.d.). One of the most famous works of John Locke was “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (sparknotes.com n.d.).
He started his book with a preface to all those who would be interested in reading his work, and an introduction which ushered the overview of what he would discuss in the subsequent pages. The works and writings of John Locke paved the way to the birth of the “modern Western philosophy” (Bio.com n.d.). His essay, which explores how knowledge is acquired, is divided into four segments.
In Book I, Locke discussed the invalidity of the principle innate ideas. Instead, he proposed that ideas are acquired through the singular sense, like smell or sight. In other words, knowledge can only be arrived at through experience or by the interaction with the surroundings. It is in this part of his book where he emphasized his disagreement with the principle of innate ideas. Knowledge has to pass through some experiential test; that is why this is called empiricism.
Book II elaborates on the theory of knowledge, which refers to “ideas created from more than one sense, such as shape and size” (SparkNotes n.d.). John Locke referred this to the principle of dualism.
Book III is attributed to the discussion on the ideas that had evolved from the process of reflection. It refers to none other than subjectivism. According to this principle of John Locke, a person can only acquire knowledge by virtue of the operation of the mind; hence, without the realm of consciousness of the human mind, there can be no valid claim that ideas or beings exist.
Lastly, Book IV discusses those ideas that had resulted when the two acts of sensing and reflection are combined, such as pleasure and pain. Locke called this principle as skepticism.
In the same work, Locke elaborated on the distinction between ideas of primary qualifications, “such as texture, number, size, shape, and motion which resemble their causes” (SparkNotes n.d.); and those with secondary qualifications, which “do not resemble their causes, as in the case with color, sound, taste, and odor” (SparkNotes n.d.). This is so because in the case of those in the primary qualifications their attributes are inseparable from the beings; whereas, those in the secondary qualifications, the characteristics of beings are just the products of the operation of the mind.
John Locke had one unequivocal disagreement with the principle of innateness, a claim “that human knowledge is innately inscribed” (Locke Guide: Knowledge n.d.). This is an assertion that there is a ready-made set of ideas that had been embedded in the mind of man and such knowledge is enhanced from the time he is born into this world. These ideas refer to “speculative innate principles, practical innate moral principles, innate ideas of God, and the ideas on identity or impossibility” (Uzgalis 2001). Locke rejected this stance while at the same time advanced his different views on the subject. Such claim cannot be valid because, according to him, “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be” (Uzgalis 2001). If such were the case that ideas and knowledge are innate and embedded in the mind of man, then infants and imbecile would have known them in the first place. On the contrary, they have no slightest information or understanding that such is the case. Thus, Locke continued, “It seems to me a near contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the Soul, which it perceives or understands not; imprinting if it signifies anything, being nothing else but the making certain Truths to be perceived” (Uzgalis 2001). He pointed out that these innate ideas can only be known under certain conditions; and until the time that these conditions emanate, such ideas cannot be known by the mind. Hence, they will continue to be unknown beings.
In rejecting the innate principle, Locke denied the existence of inborn knowledge in the human mind. He rather proposed a theory that at birth, man’s mind is a blank slate. It, then, begins to be filled up with ideas or knowledge through the human experience. Locke’s theory of knowledge differs in some sense from the Cartesian philosophy. In the latter principle, Rene Descartes did not use senses as the media in the acquisition of knowledge. He merely used the operation of the mind, so that if the mind does not think of such being, then it does not exist. Hence, for Descartes, outside the mind, there is no existence. This famous principle is what Descartes called cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore, I am or I exist).
I find either of these philosophies, Locke’s and Descartes’, not convincing. I do not agree with the proposition of Locke that knowledge only comes into the human mind by way of sensory or sensual experiences. In essence, Locke advocated for the principle that nothing comes into our mind without passing through our senses. So, if we do not experience them with the use of our sensory power, then such beings or ideas do not exist. As a corollary, then, the used-to-called planet Pluto does not and did not exist in my own perspective because I have not personally seen it. In fact, I have not personally seen a camel in my whole life either; and yet I do believe that there exists a camel. In other words, there are beings which exist independently of the human mind; so that with or without the mind having to consider them, their existence remains. Having said this, circumstances still point to the fact that the inception of knowledge does not always go through sensory intervention. There are instances where mental abstraction per se can usher the birth of knowledge.
References
Anon, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Book Summary. Available from: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/e/an-essay-concerning-human-understanding/book-summary [Accessed May 9, 2016].
Anon, John Locke. Bio.Com. Available from: http://www.biography.com/people/john-locke-9384544 [Accessed May 9, 2016].
Anon, Locke Guide: Knowledge. Locke Guide: Knowledge. Available from: http://www.philosophypages.com/locke/g04.htm [Accessed May 8, 2016].
Anon, SparkNotes. SparkNotes. Available from: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/johnlocke/section1.rhtml [Accessed May 9, 2016].
Uzgalis, W., 2001. John Locke. Stanford University. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ [Accessed May 10, 2016].
