John Locke, a renowned English philosopher in the seventeenth century, argued against the
pre-existing prevalent belief of innate knowledge, such as those led by Descartes. Many of
Locke’s arguments begin with criticisms on philosophers’ opinion on innate knowledge,
notably Descartes. Therefore, many of Locke’s arguments are direct rebuttals of Descartes
and other philosophers’ beliefs about the existence of innate knowledge. To arrive at the
conclusion that innate knowledge is impossible, Locke comes with various premises and
rebuttals that add weight to his arguments.
First, Locke emphasizes that knowledge and ideas are learned through experience, not
innately. He argues that people’s …show more content…
For example, the color blue and the
‘blueness’ of something is not that which is learned innately but is some is learned through
exposures to a blue object or thing. So if we do have a universal understanding of ‘blueness’,
it is because we are exposed to blue objects ever since we were young. The blue sky is what
many would acquaint with blue easily and at a young age.
Second, Locke argues that people have no innate principles. Locke contended that innate
principles rely upon innate ideas within people but such innate ideas do not exist. He says
this on the basis that there is no ‘universal consent’ that everyone agrees upon. Locke quotes
that ‘There is nothing more commonly taken for granted that there are certain principles
universally agreed upon by all mankind, but there are none to which all mankind give a
universal assent’. This argues against the very foundation of the idea of innate knowledge
because principles that garner universal assent are thought to be known innately, simply because it is the best explanation available. However, it cannot even be an explanation …show more content…
There are many intelligent people out there who take their status for granted and do not
think, contemplate or make an effort to their best extent.
The objections that are made against the initial arguments can be defended in certain ways.
Regarding the objection that since there are innate ideas in the mind at an early age, innate knowledge exists, the term ‘innate’ should be thought of again in greater detail. Innate
knowledge has to be significant enough for us to recount to be considered such. Thus, there
comes a risk with considering the ideas within our minds early on as innate. For example, the
knowledge of our hands and feet maybe imbedded to us at a very early stage. The knowledge
of using our hands and feet are not so significant. The knowledge that we gain through our
use of hands and feet could be vital knowledge that we may recount throughout. Throwing a
baseball properly under a coach’s instructions is an example.
Also, there is the claim that intelligence cannot be the sole indicator of one’s acquisition of
‘universal consent’ and that there isn’t a clear distinction of those who can