‘Do We Have Innate Knowledge?’ Flashcards
(9 cards)
INTRODUCTION -
(✓ Partly true – tentative support for Innatism)
Innatism is partly true. While we may not be born knowing explicit facts, we seem to possess an inherent mental structure or cognitive framework that allows us to form certain types of knowledge.
- this aligns with Leibniz’s view that innate knowledge is dispositional — not explicit at birth, but unlocked through experience and reasoning.
Innatism is the view that some knowledge is inborn, rather than acquired through experience.
- begin with Plato, contrast with Locke, assess empirical and rationalist views, ending with a moderate defense of Innatism.
PARAGRAPH ONE - (✓) Plato’s version of Innatism – Slave boy
Plato argues for innate knowledge via the slave boy in Meno.
- a supposedly uneducated boy is able to answer geometry problems with the right guidance.
This shows, according to Plato, that he did not learn this knowledge, but recalled it from within.
- suggests that the soul is born with knowledge, which we recover via recollection (anamnesis).
• Strength of this argument: It shows that learning might involve uncovering, not acquiring knowledge.
PARAGRAPH TWO - (✗) Locke’s objection – No universal ideas
John Locke rejects Innatism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
—> If knowledge were innate, it would be universal — everyone would know it.
But infants and people with mental disabilities (called “idiots” at the time) do not show evidence of having any knowledge of, for example, logic or morality.
- therefore, there are no universally held ideas, undermining the claim that such ideas are innate.
- strong empiricist argument: experience seems necessary for even basic understanding.
PARAGRAPH THREE -
(✓) Innatist reply – Discovering, not being aware
Innatists respond: innate ideas are not explicitly known at birth, but are discovered through reasoning as we mature.
- e.g. we’re not born saying “2 + 2 = 4”, but we are born with a capacity to understand it through reason.
- this explains why not everyone appears to possess innate knowledge — mental impairments or lack of development may block access to it.
- this weakens Locke’s objection — ideas can still be innate without being universally expressed.
• However, it raises a new challenge: if an idea is not expressed or realised, how can we tell it’s truly innate?
PARAGRAPH FOUR -
(✗) How can we distinguish innate from non-innate ideas?
If all ideas are discovered at some point, how can we tell which ones are innate and which are learned?
- e.g. someone may learn “2 + 2 = 4” early in life and believe they’ve “always known it.”
There’s no empirical test to show that a belief came from within rather than the environment.
- therefore, innateness is hard to demonstrate, making the theory vague and unscientific.
PARAGRAPH FIVE -
(✓) Reply: A priori vs a posteriori knowledge
Innatists reply by distinguishing between a priori (known through reason) and a posteriori (known through experience).
- a priori truths, like “2 + 2 = 4” or “all bachelors are unmarried,” are independent of sense experience.
These truths are not learned from observation, but grasped through rational reflection.
- this supports the idea that the capacity for certain types of knowledge is inbuilt, even if the actual concepts are triggered by experience.
- this doesn’t prove the knowledge is innate, but it raises doubt that all knowledge is empirical — lending support to the rationalist view.
PARAGRAPH SIX - (✗) Empiricist view – Tabula Rasa (blank slate)
Locke famously argued that the mind is a tabula rasa — a blank slate.
- ay birth, the mind contains no knowledge; all is acquired via experience and reflection.
- babies do not seem to have any rational ideas or understanding, suggesting all knowledge is built from sensory input.
This theory matches how children clearly need to be taught everything from language to social norms.
- it’s also observable — we can watch how people learn and acquire knowledge over time.
PARAGRAPH SEVEN -
(✓) Criticism of Tabula Rasa – We must have innate structures
Critics argue that we must have some kind of innate mental architecture to even begin learning.
Leibniz —> innate ideas are not “already formed,” but rather tendencies, inclinations, dispositions.
- : even newborns can suckle, cry, breathe, etc. — these are not learned behaviours.
Noam Chomsky —> argues for an innate Language Acquisition Device (LAD) — a biological structure in the brain that allows children to learn language quickly and universally.
- if the mind were truly blank, how could children learn complex grammar with so little input?
Suggests that innate structures may not contain knowledge per se, but facilitate its acquisition.
CONCLUSION -
(✓ Innatism is partly true)
Overall, Innatism cannot be entirely rejected.
- while we may not be born with explicit ideas, we clearly have built-in mental capacities that make learning possible.
Empiricist criticisms are strong, but they fail to explain how learning happens so quickly and universally without some kind of innate structure.
Strongest points:
- the discovery rather than awareness model defends against Locke’s universal objection.
- a priori truths suggest at least some knowledge is not sensory.
Biological and psychological evidence (e.g. Chomsky, reflexes) supports innate cognitive mechanisms.
- therefore, while not all knowledge is innate, the capacity for some kinds of knowledge must be.
