Philosophy – Connor Oulton
Describe and illustrate two of Locke’s reasons for believing there are no such things as innate ideas.
The definition of innate ideas are ideas that are present in the mind since birth, that are neither formed through knowledge or pulled from within our mind by experience. Therefore, it cannot be posteriori (knowledge derived from experience) but must be priori knowledge. Locke argued three parts to an idea to make it innate instead of produced from experience of the world around us.
The first idea was that it must be present at the mind at birth, so we must be born with this idea instead of gaining it through experience. The third idea is that it cannot be excavated by experience as it results the knowledge as …show more content…
If these such ideas were innate, then why does a baby nor an idiot know the belief of right and wrong. If the idea of God was present from birth then many more people, practically all would be different in how they act. For example, people would be choosing to act morally right instead of wrong and toddlers would not need punishing and told how not to act as God would have ingrained the good morality into everyone’s mind. To include as well is the idea of self, children lack that because they are not self-aware. Babies cannot tell how they are feeling and cry for different reasons I.e. food or tired. They cannot tell sorrow from anger and they are unable to tell themselves as being individual from others and the environment. As they grow they experience change and they see how things are different so instead of crying for food they will find their own food, so babies have no innate ideas. So, this proves Locke’s reasoning because it draws on the lives that are new to the world and harbour no experience therefore clear conclusions can be drawn on the
Describe and illustrate two of Locke’s reasons for believing there are no such things as innate ideas.
The definition of innate ideas are ideas that are present in the mind since birth, that are neither formed through knowledge or pulled from within our mind by experience. Therefore, it cannot be posteriori (knowledge derived from experience) but must be priori knowledge. Locke argued three parts to an idea to make it innate instead of produced from experience of the world around us.
The first idea was that it must be present at the mind at birth, so we must be born with this idea instead of gaining it through experience. The third idea is that it cannot be excavated by experience as it results the knowledge as …show more content…
If these such ideas were innate, then why does a baby nor an idiot know the belief of right and wrong. If the idea of God was present from birth then many more people, practically all would be different in how they act. For example, people would be choosing to act morally right instead of wrong and toddlers would not need punishing and told how not to act as God would have ingrained the good morality into everyone’s mind. To include as well is the idea of self, children lack that because they are not self-aware. Babies cannot tell how they are feeling and cry for different reasons I.e. food or tired. They cannot tell sorrow from anger and they are unable to tell themselves as being individual from others and the environment. As they grow they experience change and they see how things are different so instead of crying for food they will find their own food, so babies have no innate ideas. So, this proves Locke’s reasoning because it draws on the lives that are new to the world and harbour no experience therefore clear conclusions can be drawn on the