Innatism (Epistemology) Flashcards
Key features of Innatism
- Innate ideas are ‘in’ us, although we may not be aware of them
- We can regain these memories through reason
- Innate ideas provide timeless truths
Plato’s Slave boy argument
P1. Slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry/shapes
P2. Socrates only asks questions; he doesn’t teach the boys
P3. After the questioning, the slave boy can grasp the timeless truths of geometry/shapes
P4. This knowledge isn’t derived from prior experience, nor from socrates
C. The timeless truths must have been within the boy to begin with.
Lockes Objection: No universal assent
P1. Any innate idea , x, if it exists, must be universally held
P2. Children and idiots do not have the idea of x
P3. If an idea is held, you must be aware of it (the transparency argument)
C1. x is not universally held
C2. So, x is not innate
Leibniz’s response to Lockes’s no universal assent
That children and idiots do employ innate principles in their everyday actions, even if they don’t articulate it.
eg a child knows their teddy can’t be in their hand and in the loft at the same time.
Locke’s Transparency Argument
Argument against the claim ‘children and idiots may contain these ideas but aren’t aware of them’
Locke says to have an idea you must be aware of it at some point.
As, if you are not aware of a thought, in what sense is it ‘in’ your mind?
Innatism Essay Plan
P1. Intent, Definition of innate knowledge
P2 Slave boy argument
P2.1 Objection: Locke’s No universal assent
P2.2 Leibniz Defence: Children and idiots do have these ideas, they are just unaware.
P3. Locke’s objection: The mind is transparent and is tabula rasa.
P3.1 Leibniz Defence: Mind is not transparent; there are things we can know and not be aware of (ie necessary truths). Argument from necessary truths/veined block of marble
P3.2 Locke’s objection: Can’t clearly distinguish between innate K and K we gain through experience (they feel the same)
P3.3 Leibniz Defence: We can distinguish, innate knowledge = necessary truths whereas knowledge through experience = contingent truths. Causation is an example of a necessary truth.
P4. Hume’s Objection: Copy principle. Causation is constant conjunction.
P4.1 Issue of missing shade of blue
P5. Conclusion
Leibniz’s Defence against Locke’s Transparency Argument - Argument from necessary truths
The mind is not transparent.
Maybe you ‘absorbed’ a song on the radio without being consciously aware of it but you would recognise it if you heard it again.
Therefore you can have an idea ‘in’ your mind without consciously being aware of it.
AFNT:
States that sense experience only provides us with info of particular instances (no universal truths).
We already have knowledge of some necessary truths which ‘go beyond’ particular instances (they’re universal).
Therefore, we cannot know necessary truths through sense experience which implies NTs must be present someplace else in the mind (innate).
Locke’s Objection that we can’t clearly distinguish between innate knowledge and knowledge gained from experience
He questions how we can tell these two types of knowledge apart?
Why not say the idea of blue was within you from birth, but only when you see blue does the idea become active.
Leibniz’s Defence against Locke’s Objection of distinguishing between innate and experience knowledge + Causation as an example
We can distinguish between them by how they are true.
Innate ideas are necessarily true. These are necessarily true and innate as they are able to explain things universally (across every situation).
Whereas, contingent truths (gained from experience) can only explain that specific situation (the tree fell because the wind gusted.. well what made the wind gust etc).
Causation is an example of an innate necessary truth. (Causation = every event that happens must have a cause). Leibniz says we understand this from birth and therefore is innate.
Hume’s Objection to Innate Knowledge: The Copy Principle
Aims to show how all ideas come from experience.
Hume says that when we perceive something, we get an impression of it, which copies into our mind as a simple idea, which then combine into complex ideas.
e.g. you get the impressions of a chair of redness, silverness, shininess etc which copies into the mind as simple ideas, which combines into the complex idea of a chair.
