Locke and Empiricism

John Locke

Radical empiricist- all knowledge comes from experience.

Tabula Rasa

Minds are born ‘tabula rusa’ which means ‘a blank slate’

minds are born empty, with nothing in them and that it is only as we start to experience the world that we come to know things

so mind has no ideas when born

Simple and Complex Ideas

Locke first distinguishes between sensations and ideas. Sensations are our immediate experiences of the external world whereas ideas are the thoughts, memories, concepts etc. in our mind​

• Simple ideas – ideas are single and do not refer to anything else ​

• e.g. the colour blue, the feeling of cold, the sound of a musical note etc. Complex ideas – ideas made up of multiple simple ideas​e.g. a block of ice is blue, cold, hard etc. all at once​

Simple and Complex Ideas continued

Simple sensations (experiences) create simple ideas

Complex sensations (experiences) create complex ideas

Complex ideas break down into simple ideas

Simple ideas build up to complex ideas

Simple and Complex Differences​

1. Simple ideas are phenomenally simple or ‘uncompounded’, such as shades of colour and tastes. They cannot be analysed in terms of other concepts whereas complex concepts can be broken down (eg table).​

2. Simple ideas are copies of reality (Locke), but complex concepts need not be a copy of anything that exists and are formed through combination of simple ideas (to form concepts of even non-existent things) ​

3. [For Locke] Simple ideas always represent the intended object fully: they “perfectly represent those archetypes which the mind supposes them taken from: which it intends them to stand for, and to which it refers them”​

4. [For Locke] Words standing for simple ideas are less likely to be misapplied e.g. it would be odd, if not impossible, to apply the word ‘red’ to the idea ‘green’. But words for complex ideas are more likely to be misapplied e.g. you could call something a unicorn, when it is actually a alicorn​

Locke’s Arguments Against Innatism​

1. Firstly, he argued that with the model we just looked at, all ideas could be explained by previous experience (sensations) that we have had​

2. Secondly, he pointed out that if you have an idea, then you know you have an idea. He thought the belief that you can have an idea that you don’t know about is absurd. If we have innate ideas, we would know about them… but we don’t!​

3. Finally, he said that if ideas were innate, then everyone would have them…​

Locke’s argument against Innatism - step by step

1. If there is innate knowledge, it is universal​

2. For an idea to be part of the mind, the mind must be aware of that idea​

3. Therefore, innate knowledge is knowledge that every human being is aware of​

4. Children and idiots do not know geometry or facts like ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’ as they don’t understand them​

5. Following the above, there are in fact no universal claims that are accepted by even children and idiots​

6. Therefore, there is no innate knowledge​

Locke vs. Innatists​

• Plato: Meno’s slave​- ————

• You are showing Meno’s slave the answer; giving him the experience needed.

• He must already have learnt concepts like ‘half’ and ‘double’ from experience​

• 
  

  • Plato and Leibniz: we ‘uncover’ innate ideas with experience———-​

  • Mind is born ‘tabula rasa’ – there’s nothing to uncover​

  • You don’t ‘uncover’ it, you simply ‘copy’ it from sensations

  • ​

  • Leibniz: Knowledge can be unconscious———

  • You cannot have knowledge that you are not conscious of​

  • 
    

  • Leibniz: ideas of necessary truths are innate—————​

  • All examples can be shown through copies of impressions​

  • If this were true then they would be universal but there is no universal knowledge​​