Innate Ideas Essay

After reading the analysis of innate ideas of the two philosophers. I tend to agree with Locke’s argument that there is no such innate ideas. First, Descartes does not proving enough about how can we born with innate ideas? This major flaw eventually get to Locke’s tension and give us a strong evident of the young children should aware of truth if they have innate ideas in them. Second, I believe in Locke’s criticism about ideas only gain through our experiences and situations. Thus the more experience we have, the vivid picture about our external world we can perceived.

Locke also believes that people have innate ideas through experiences. He has three explanations for this idea. Firstly, if we had innate ideas, we would know that we have them, which means that if you have ideas they are conscience and everything you think, you think you think. Secondly, if there were innate truths of reason we would all agree on them. Lastly, our memory cannot recall these innate ideas.

Adventitious ideas are created by outside objects but Descartes, “points out that, even if his adventitious ideas are produced by external objects, he has no reason for believing that his ideas resemble the objects which produced them.” Descartes believes

To further validate his proof, he attempts to show God’s existence as an a posteriori claim. Descartes states that as humans we have the idea of God in our minds. We conceive God as a perfect being, that of perfect existence. As shown in the quote from page 37, this idea of God is beyond our reasoning to create, and must have come from God itself. Our idea of God certifies his existence. Descartes deviates from the method again, and his reasoning fails to provide an absolute proof.

were innate still had to come from somewhere. If they are in our heads when we

This means the ideas either came from inside or outside of us. Innate ideas are what someone thinks something is, what truth is and what thought is. These ideas are considered innate because the understanding process seems to be a result simply from one’s own nature. They are in no way derived. When I see, hear, feel, touch, and talk, I develop an idea adventitiously. For example, if I were sitting by a fire, I would feel the heat off of the flames. Feeling or having the idea of the heat was not something I decided to do from within; therefore, it must have come from something other than myself, which in this case would be from the fire. Last but not least, some ideas are made up in my own mind. For instance, when I read a book, I develop an image based on what I’m reading but I obviously have never actually seen the settings of the stories I have read.

Descartes defines senses as a part of the process of thinking. He also explains that we can use our senses to help us understand the true nature of things. Descartes struggled with doubt and his senses when he used his ontological proof that God existed. For example, he explains that he is aware that he is not perfect and he makes mistakes. He understands that he must know what perfect is in order to give someone the title. He knew that something perfect lead him to have these ideas and that it must exist. His definition of perfect is unique without the knowledge of anyone else and he defined it as God. For example, Descartes believes that God is perfect and deception is a sign of imperfection. Therefore, Descartes came to the conclusion that God cannot deceive. This example shows that Descartes did struggle to accept his own belief without doubting himself. His ontological argument proved, to Descartes, that through God everything

Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas.  Then the question arises of

Descartes explains that the “ideas or thoughts of these things were hovering before my mind”, not perceptions of things existing outside of him (Descartes, 24). It follows that he cannot come to know of things for certain through sense perception.

First, ideas originate from causes; the latter must have as much or more formal reality as the objective reality of the idea. Second, Descartes has an idea about God, this idea has infinite objective reality because this idea, no matter what caused it has to have infinite formal reality; “because something can’t come from nothing, or the cause must have as much or more reality than the effect” (Descartes 31). Third, Descartes is finite and does not have infinite formal reality, therefore he cannot cause the idea of God because he, as a cause, would have less formal reality than the objective reality of what he produced, effect, which is the idea of God. Thus, God could have caused the idea of God in him, because only God has as much formal reality as the objective reality of his idea (Descartes 31), therefore, God

He reasons that, through these principals, his idea of God cannot have come from himself, as he is an imperfect being. He does not have the capability of thinking of an infinite substance or a perfect substance, such as God, because he has lesser reality than these ideas and cannot be the cause of them. The only way these ideas could exist is if they were created by something of equal (greater being impossible, as infinite perfection cannot have a superior) reality. Because God is the only infinite Descartes can recognize at this state, it must be God that planted the idea in his mind.

John Locke, an empiricist belonging to seventeenth century philosophy, is well-known today for his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In chapter ii of Book I of this work, Locke firmly rejects the theory of nativism that proposes innate ideas in humans. An important disclaimer to be noted before continuing is that Locke makes his case by first interpreting nativism in its simplest form (occurrent nativism) -- as opposed to the dispositional nativism that requires a sophisticated process of discovering the content of one’s mind. This distinction is significant since it is the latter definition of nativism that most of Locke’s opponents use to weaken An Essay. In any case, however, the nativist individual would claim that innate ideas are present in man from birth, with senses beginning in the womb, and that these primary ideas meet the soul as soon as they come into existence in the world. It is possible that Locke could accept the presence of innate capacities that make it possible to acquire knowledge, but he could not agree that the innate principles exist in an imprinted manner independent of sensory experience. He arrives at the hypothesis that the human mind is a tabula rasa upon which true knowledge can only be formed from empirical experience. The most convincing defense that Locke makes against the doctrine of innate ideas is a rebuttal to the argument that stems from universal consent. If Locke’s criticizers wanted to best dispute Book I of An Essay, they

Plato and Locke have opposite opinions on the matter of innate ideas. Plato argues that the recognition of truth in reality is derived from the "recollection" of truth in the soul. A necessary part of Plato's argument is that "recollection" of Truth depends upon the existence of an immortal soul. Locke, on the other hand, rejects Plato's argument by stating that the recognition of truth is not dependent on "recollection" but is rather "self-evident." In other words, Locke argues that one does not need to "understand" truth to know it or admit of the existence of an immortal soul, for truth according to Locke reveals itself by virtue of its being true. This paper will analyze the arguments of each philosopher and show why I believe Plato to have the better argument on the matter of "recollection" and innate ideas in the soul.

The problem he has with us thinking like this is that all sorts of things would end up being defined as innate. Locke thought that we had the capacity to recognise “self evident” truths and that we do have an innate capacity allowing us to recognise things, however they are not actually innate ideas within us, but ideas we gain from experience which our innate capacity allows us to understand. He was of the opinion that ideas are material of thinking and that there was no thinking before perception. While the mind has the capacity to think, it is not actually constantly thinking. For example, if you are asleep but not dreaming, then according to Locke, your mind isn’t actually thinking.

Rene Descartes was a rationalist who believed that knowledge of the world can be gained by the exercise of pure reason, while empiricist like Locke believed that knowledge of the world came through senses. Descartes from his meditations deduced from intuitive first principles the existence of self, of God, of the mind as a thinking substance and the extended body as a material substance whereas Locke, asserts that knowledge is acquired through perception, direct sensory of the world, reflections, the mental processes of breaking down complex impressions into simple ones and comparing them, conceptualizing them and recommending them to form new philosophies.