innatism

knowledge you are born with

  • disposition to grasp some facts/knowledge

leibniz, descartes and plato

if you dont have knowledge, how can you enquire about it, if you know it then there is no need to enquire

rationalism : reason

a priori knowledge comes from reason whilst a posteriori knowledge comes from experience

analytic propositions are true by definition of the words used a bachelor is an unmarried man whilst synthetic propositions are true by how the way the world is water boils at 100oc

necessary truths are porpositions which are true in every possible world ( a triange has 3 sides) whilst contingent truths are true in some possible worlds but not all ( water is H20)/

rationalists believe our knowledge comes from reason whilst empiricists believe that our knowledge comes from experience.

a priori - 1,3,6, 8, 10 , 11

a posteriori - 2,4,5, 7, 9, 12

analytic - 2, 3, 4,

synthetic - 1, 5, 6, 7

necessary - 1, 2

contingent - 3, 4, 5, 6,

entailed - guaranteed to be the case

from sheet:

Geometry/squares

asks questions - teach

questioning - eternal truth

eternal - experience - Socrates

ternal truth - innately

B4: you don’t need the theory of souls existed before birth to explain why the slave boy had knowledge. He’s just using reasoning. So the premise is wrong. = begging the question.

B5: he also knows numbers (2,4,6,8) also how to double numbers and diagonal.

in conclusion, this is a weak arguments - flawed - unconvincing - not compelling

what is a form - abstraction of any concept and the perfect abstraction

Leibniz’s argument:

  • P1: the senses only give us particular instances

  • P2: a collection of instances can never show the necessity of a truth

  • P3: We can grasp and prove many necessary truths ( such as maths)

  • C1: therefore the necessary truths that we grasp with our mind do not derive from the senses

  • C2: the mind is the source of these necessary truths

  • C3: these ideas are known innately.

marble/statue analogy:

the innate truths are in us as birth - ‘as inclinations, dispositions, tendencies or natural potentialities, and not as actual thinkings’

it already has natural potential. e.g. marble with veins is in the shape of Hercules but we don’t see the veins, but it forms the shape of Hercules because of the veins.

Locke argues that innatism is universal and transparent

transparency of ideas

  • we are able to perceive all the ideas they contain

  • we should therefore, be able to identify innate ideas

  • Locke could ask ‘ could you have a pain that you never felt?’

    • no, you cant

response 1:

  • we can absorb ideas that we are unaware of at a later time. E.g. a song in the background of a supermarket but not paying attention, when listening to the radio you recognise it. perhaps innate ideas are also initially opaque to our minds.