Locke’s Mission Statement
Persuading the busy mind of [humankind] to be more cautious in meddling with things that are beyond its powers to understand; … Perhaps then we shall stop … getting into confusing disputes … about things to which our understandings are not suited.
Locke’s Stance on Innate Knowledge
- Locke is strongly opposed to the idea that any kind of knowledge is innate.
- He aims to show this by demonstrating that all knowledge comes from experience.
- Thus, there is simply no need to assume anything innate.
- Why make an assumption if you can have an explanation?
- This point is so powerful that the entire debate on innateness revolves around it.
- Anyone refuting Locke tries to show that there is knowledge that cannot come from experience.
Discussion
- How can it be that literally everyone agrees on something, and yet that something is not innate?
- What would Locke say about Plato’s argument with the square?
- It seems that Locke claims that we all learn the same general ideas. Why wouldn’t there be at least some variation? (Or is there?)
My Thoughts
It is clear to me that Locke is incorrect in his assertion that innate knowledge is non-existent and that all knowledge comes from experience. Even his statement that “all knowledge is derived from experience” seems contradictory: does this not mean that we must have some innate knowledge that allows us to translate experience and sensory input into knowledge?
Now, I do not claim an answer to the question of whether or not innate knowledge exists, however, as I said above, I do believe that Locke’s argument is fundamentally flawed thanks to the seeming contradiction that lies in his assertion that there does not exist innate knowledge, and that all knowledge is gained through experience and sensory input received from the world.