Innatism

What is innate knowledge?

Innate knowledge is knowledge that we have hand (at least) since birth.

What is innatism?

Innatism is the view that we have at least some innate knowledge. to be an innatist, you need to believe that we know at least one proposition innately.

What did Plato believe?

Our souls are immortal and in a prior existence we apprehended perfect concepts/ ‘forms’ in their pure state. In our current existence, we have forgotten these forms but the knowledge of them is within us innately, through a process of reasoning, we can realise them (they are timeless truths).

What was Plato’s argument from the ‘enslaved boy’?

P1) The slave boy had no prior knowledge of geometry/ squares. P2) Socrates asks the slave boy questions, but does not teach him about squares/ geometry. P3) By the end of the questioning, the boy is able to grasp an eternal truth about geometry/squares. P4) This eternal truth was not derived from Socrates or the boy’s prior experiences. C) This eternal truth must have existed within the boy to begin with.

What’s a summary of Plato’s argument from the ‘enslaved boy’?

Socrates asked the enslaved boy (who had no prior knowledge about squares/ geometry) questions about squares, by the end of the questioning he can grasp and eternal truth about geometry/ squares, this truth existed innately and was retrieved through reasoning, enabling a perfect understanding once again.

What’s a criticism of Plato’s argument from the enslaved boy?

The boy is displaying/ using the faculty of reason to work out the eternal truth of geometry (by working out what must be the case given certain features of lines and shapes (which are known from experience)) rather than retrieving it from a ‘forgotten’ memory. P4 is wrong, the boy can derive the truth by reasoning from his prior experiences of shapes.

What’s a/ the wider meaning of Platos slave boy argument?

We recognise the truth to bee true not just of that particular square but of all squares. Such knowledge cannot derive from our experiences, since our experience is only ever of particular squares. Plato believes that our minds see the essential nature of the form of the square and recognise truths about this, rather than truths about the particular example. We have an innate faculty which recognises such truths as eternal and necessary.

What’s Platos wider argument?

P1) The sense can only reveal particular instances. P2) The minds can grasp perfect universal concepts C1) These concepts cannot be derived from the senes C2) These concepts must be contained within us to begin with (they are innate)

What did Leibniz believe?

He believed that our minds are alike to a block of marble and are ‘veined’ in such a way that when chiselled will readily take a specific shape due to an inclination/ tendency. We are not born with fully formed innate knowledge but once promoted (struck) by the senses (chisel), certain ideas/ principles will appear.

What are contingent truths?

A contingent truth is a truth which does not have to be true. E.g ‘It is sunny.’

What are necessary truths?

Necessary truths are truths which have to be true. E.g 2 + 2 =4

what is Leibniz’s argument from the necessity of truth?

P1) The senses only reveal instances of general truths. P2) The senses cannot reveal the necessity of a general truth. P3) Our minds can see the necessity in some general truths. C) Our ability to see the necessity of general truth is not derived from the senses, but is based on innate principles.

Experience enables our awareness of some knowledge but alone do not provide the knowledge of necessary truths.

What does Leibniz’s argument further explained?

General truths may be formed from induction based off of our senses e.g ‘the sun rises everyday’, however this is not a necessity truth, one day it may not rise. Necessary truths are known to be necessary truths due to our reason (which is innate), our mind sees that only this can be the case.

What does Leibniz believe are innate principles/truths?

Truths of mathematics, logical principles are the concept of identity.

What are certain principles/dispositions that Leibniz believes are innate?

Unity, duration, change, action and pleasure.

What is a counter argument to Leibniz’ argument based on necessary truths?

Humes Fork argues that all necessary truths are actually analytical a priori (relations of ideas) which we acquire through experiences (the copy principles), therefore they do not have to be innate.

What are propositions?

Propositions are the meanings behind statements, they propose a certain version of the world and are true if they match the facts of the world and false if they don’t, we refer tot hem with full sentences.

What is a concept?

What is empiricism?

Empiricism is the branch of philosophy which claims that all of out ideas and concepts are derived from sense experiences.

What’s the law of identity?

‘Whatever is, is’.

What’s the law of non-contradiction?

‘It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’

What is Lockes first negative argument: There is no universal knowledge so there is no innate knowledge? (Short version)

P1) If there was any innate knowledge it would be universal. P2: But there is nothing everyone knows (‘idiots’ and children do not possess some allegedly innate principles) P3) Therefore there is no innate knowledge.

No universal ideas = no innate knowledge

What is Lockes first negative argument against Innnatism: no universal assent (long version)

P1) Any innate ideas, x, if it exists, would be universally held. P2) Children and idiots do no have the ideas of x. P3) The notion of a person having an innate idea, c, and not being aware of it, does not make any sense. C1) So x is not universally held. C2) Therefore x is not innate.

What’s a criticism to Lockes first negative argument: no universal assent?

Leibniz claims that ‘children and idiots’ do possess these innate ideas, but are not aware that they possess them and they employ the law of identity and the principles of non-contradiction in their everyday actions, even though they cannot articulate them. These ideas may be held universally. Universality is not a sufficient condition for innateness. Perhaps God has given only some people specific innate knowledge

What is Lockes second negative argument against Innatism (Transparency of ideas) in an argument format?

P1) We are conscious of, or have been conscious of at some point in the past, everything that is in our minds. P2) If we had innate knowledge, it would have to be knowledge that we had never been conscious of in the past. C) Therefore, there is no innate knowledge.

We must have been aware of something to know it

What is Lockes second negative argument (Transparency of ideas)?

Our minds are transparent and we are able to perceive all of the ideas the ideas contain, to have ideas in our minds we must have been conscious of it at one point.

What are responses to this issue?

• Maybe there are ideas/concepts/ memories in out ming that we’ve never been conscious of (e.g ‘absorbing’ a song may make you able to recognise it when it’s played again though it’s not ‘transparent’, it is still in your mind.

• Similarly, an innate idea could be ‘in’ your mind despite not being conscious of it

• (An ideas is innate despite you being unaware of, it will become active later in life, given the right stimulus).

What is Lockes third negative argument against Innatism (How can we distinguish ideas from other ideas?)? What’s an example?

If we need to have experiences to ‘activate’ our innate knowledge, then there is nothing to distinguish innate knowledge from knowledge simply gained by experience. P2) If there is innate knowledge, we should be able to tell the difference between out innate knowledge and knowledge gained by experience. C) Therefore, there is no innate knowledge.

Why not say that we have innate knowledge of the colour blue but only when we see the colour blue does the idea/capacity become active. Everything the mind could ever know would be innate in this sense

What is a criticism to Lockes third negative argument (How can we distinguish innate ideas from other ideas)?

Leibniz argues that we can distinguish innate ideas from other ideas as innate ideas are necessarily true, unlike either ideas, once the truths are understood, the mind immediately recognises that it has an eternal application.

What is Lockes positive argument (4th argument)?

Aims to semi start the strength and simplicity of the ‘tabula rasa’ theory to show that Innatism is an unnecessary approach.

What does tabula rasa translate to and how does Locke relate it to the humans mind?

Our minds are blank tablets or slates and are able to acquire knowledge and ideas exclusively from self experiences and the mind’s ability to reflect upon itself and its own operations. If this theory is coherent, this argument is better than Innatism due to Ockhmas razor.

What is the argument for the mind as a tabula rasa?

P1) The theory of innate ideas claims that we are born with innate ideas. P2) All of our ideas can be shown to be derived from experiences. C) Therefore theory of innate ideas is redundant.

It could be the case that a) we are born with an innate idea of each colour and is the case that b) we see colour with our eyes. Why would God or nature give us a) given b)?

How do we gain concepts?

Locke and Hume argue that our minds receive sense impressions from the sense and inward. Impressions from our feelings and these are copied into ideas or concepts. This enables us to think about things which aren’t present to our senses and combine simple ideas (single elements) to create complex ideas (various simple ideas merged together).

What is the criticism to the tabula rasa that questions whether all ideas come from impressions?

We may be able to from simple ideas without the simple impression, for example creating a new shade of blue (one that we’ve never seen before) in our minds. If this is possible, this goes against their principle of nothing being able to exist in the mind without the sense impressions.

What’s a counter argument to the issue as to whether all ideas come form impressions?

We cannot form the concept of a missing shade

What does Humes fork argue?

We can only have knowledge of relations of ideas (revealed by reason but sense experiences are also needed, necessary truths, can be proven by deduction, don’t tell us anything about the world) or matters of fact (experiencing the world, we observe the world and then generalise from experiences (induction) they can never be certain).

What issue does Humes fork pose for rationalists?