Innatism

Outline Leibnz’’s argument for innate knowledge

P1. Senses only give particular instances

P2. Collection of instances can never show necessity of a truth

P3. Grasp and prove necessary truths such as maths

C1. Necessary truth not derived by sense

C2. Mind is source of necessary truths

C3. These ideas are known innately

Define rationalism

The belief that we can know truths about the world through some synthetic a priori knowledge . This doesn’t require sense experience to justify it .

Define innate knowledge

This is a belief held by some rationalists that some facts about the world are derived from birth through thinking alone without sense experience for justification . For example Plato’s Slave Boy argument

Define analytic truth

This is a belief held by rationalists that some knowledge is derived through the definition and meaning of words . This does not require sense experience to justify it . For example bachelors are unmarried men

Outline Plato’s slave boy argument

P1. The slave boy has no prior teaching of geometry or maths

P3. At the end of the questioning the slave boy grasps some ternal truths about geometry/maths

p4. vious experience or Socrates questioning

C. Therefore there are eternal truths which exist innately and are known through “amanesis” (remembering )

Define a priori knowledge

This is the belief held by rationalists that some knowledge is derived without the need for sense experience . This is in the form of innate knowledge derived from birth and thinking alone or analytic truths which are true by the definition of words such as bachelors are unmarried men .

What type of knowledge do rationalists believe in ?

some synthetic a priori knowledge

What is the Greek word for remembering ?

Amanesis

What is Meno’s paradox ?

The idea that the soul is immortal and therefore means that innate knowledge is recollected through amanesis and preious existence

Outline Meno’s paradox

P1. For anything X either one knows X or one does not know X

P2. If one knows X then one inquire about X

P3. If one does not know X then one cannot inquire about X
C . Therefore for all X one cannot inquire X

Define necessary truth for Leibnz

Some truths are eternal , unchanging and could not be otherwise , necessary truths .

For example the statement “all events have causes “. Experience only gives you turths that account for certain instances .

Neccessary truths can’t be from experience they must be innate . Imagine a block of marble

What is Locke’s argument against innate knowledge to do with children and idiots

Cannot be innate knowledge as if something were innate it would be part o human nature , universal

children and idiots would have the innate idea of God , universally agreed by all .

Its illogical to claim you have knowledge but you’re not unaware of fit .

More logical to argue experience is source of all knowledge , simple/complex ideas.

For example simple ideas are blue and complex ideas are blue mountains

What is Locke’s argument against innate knowledge to do with tabula rasa

Mind is a blank slate , we are not born with innate knowledge that will be remembered amnesias but with a blank slate which through experience we will derive knowledge

How does Locke believe knowledge can be broken down

Simple and complex ideas

Define innate knowledge

All knowledge is derived from birth and requires no sense experience to justify truths , belief held by rationalists . Most important type of knowledge as unchanging + eternal

Define rationalists

Believes we have some synthetic a priori knowledge . Justify truths without experience

Criticism of Plato’s argument , the boy is taught

Unclear how this is proof of forgotten knowledge .

Boy use principle of his faculty of reason .

Use experience to figure it out through questioning

How would Plato respond

forms , eternal truths that are certain such as maths and geometry .

souls exist in transcendent realm before in our bodies imprinted .

Birth cause us to temporarily forget , stored within us

What 2 issues are there with the defence of Plato’s argument ?

Ockham’s razor