Are ideas innate or not? First, I will present the debate on innate ideas as argued by Descartes on the affirmative, and John Locke on the negative. Descartes view that we do indeed have innate ideas which comes from his mediations concerning the idea of god. While Locke would argue that we do not have innate ideas and that is rooted in his belief that all knowledge is a result of our experiences. Descartes was a French philosopher who was a rationalist. Rationalists believe that all ideas are innate. What this means is that we have all truths already in our minds from birth, and we do not need to take in any information from the outside world to know what is truth. In his book Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes tries to prove that
…show more content…
Descartes begins by holding a piece of wax and using his sense to analyze its smell, color, shape and sound it makes when he hits it on his knuckle, and says “Its color shape and size are manifest” (Cress 1993,21). What he means, is that he can use his sense like sight, taste, touch smell, and hearing and know that what he has in his hand is on deed wax. Just like when a person holds a piece of bread and can use their sense to feel the texture and softness of it, and how it smells, tastes and looks. This would suggest that the understanding we have of the wax or bread is from our senses and not our innate knowledge. But Descartes continues in his meditation that as soon as he brings the wax close to the fire “For whatever came under the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch, or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains” (Cress 1993,21). What Descartes is saying here is that when he brought the wax near the fire it had melted and all the characteristics that he used his sense to define the wax are different. The wax no long has the same shape, smell, look, or sound. Yet he still knows that it is wax. In the example of the bread this would be the equivalent of toasting the bread. The breads texture, smell, look and taste all change, yet we still know that it is bread. This leads Descartes to ask how is it that even though the sensory input that …show more content…
Universal assent states that there are things that every single person believes and agrees to. Rationalist believe that if all people agree on something than the idea must be innate. Locke makes two counter arguments to this claim. He begins by saying “Universal Assent proves nothing innate” (Winkler 1996, 8). What this means is that just purely agreeing to an idea does not prove that the idea is innate. For example, we all know what sweet and what sour is. But that does not prove it to be innate. It only proves that we have all had similar experiences that lead us to the same conclusion. He also refutes Universal Assent through the claim that quite simply “There is none to which all mankind gave universal assent to” (Winkler 1996, 8). In this quote he is saying that Universal assent cannot be correct because it is impossible for every single person in the world to universally assent to. For example, we can look at spicy food. But we cannot all agree that a certain food is spicy. People from India may not find Mexican food spicy, while people from the united states will find Mexican food spicy. Thus there is a difference of opinion as to if Mexican food is spicy, therefore we cannot universally assent that Mexican food is
Descartes begins by holding a piece of wax and using his sense to analyze its smell, color, shape and sound it makes when he hits it on his knuckle, and says “Its color shape and size are manifest” (Cress 1993,21). What he means, is that he can use his sense like sight, taste, touch smell, and hearing and know that what he has in his hand is on deed wax. Just like when a person holds a piece of bread and can use their sense to feel the texture and softness of it, and how it smells, tastes and looks. This would suggest that the understanding we have of the wax or bread is from our senses and not our innate knowledge. But Descartes continues in his meditation that as soon as he brings the wax close to the fire “For whatever came under the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch, or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains” (Cress 1993,21). What Descartes is saying here is that when he brought the wax near the fire it had melted and all the characteristics that he used his sense to define the wax are different. The wax no long has the same shape, smell, look, or sound. Yet he still knows that it is wax. In the example of the bread this would be the equivalent of toasting the bread. The breads texture, smell, look and taste all change, yet we still know that it is bread. This leads Descartes to ask how is it that even though the sensory input that …show more content…
Universal assent states that there are things that every single person believes and agrees to. Rationalist believe that if all people agree on something than the idea must be innate. Locke makes two counter arguments to this claim. He begins by saying “Universal Assent proves nothing innate” (Winkler 1996, 8). What this means is that just purely agreeing to an idea does not prove that the idea is innate. For example, we all know what sweet and what sour is. But that does not prove it to be innate. It only proves that we have all had similar experiences that lead us to the same conclusion. He also refutes Universal Assent through the claim that quite simply “There is none to which all mankind gave universal assent to” (Winkler 1996, 8). In this quote he is saying that Universal assent cannot be correct because it is impossible for every single person in the world to universally assent to. For example, we can look at spicy food. But we cannot all agree that a certain food is spicy. People from India may not find Mexican food spicy, while people from the united states will find Mexican food spicy. Thus there is a difference of opinion as to if Mexican food is spicy, therefore we cannot universally assent that Mexican food is