Concept Empiricist Arguments against Concept Innatism

Empiricist arguments against an innate idea of God: -Our concept of God comes from us abstracting qualities we observe in the world. For example, we experience wise, kind and strong people and abstract out these characteristics infinitely to form the idea of an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent being, God. Some Empiricists might also argue that not all humans have the concept of God. They might also argue that we do not have the concept of an infinite being – we only have a negative concept of infinite as the opposite of finite.

Empiricist arguments against an innate idea of physical substance: we can form the concept of extension through abstracting from our changeable sensory experiences.

We can form the concept of extension through abstracting from our changeable sensory experiences. We acquire the concepts of numbers from abstracting out from our experiences of collections of objects. For example, by having experiences of pairs of things, we can recognise what they have in common and abstract out the concept ‘two’.

Empiricist arguments against innate ideas of universals such as beauty and justice: We have many experiences of beautiful objects (e.g. paintings, sunsets) and we recognise what each of these experiences has in common and abstract out the concept of ‘beauty’ from these experiences. Similarly with justice; we abstract out the concept of justice from recognising similarities in our experiences of just acts.

Locke Vs Leibniz In Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sets out to show that innate ideas do not exist (that the mind is indeed a Tabula Rasa). Locke’s arguments against the existence of innate ideas are:

Innate ideas are not necessary: ‘... men can get all the knowledge they have, and can arrive at certainty about some things, purely by using their natural faculties, without help from any innate notions or principles.’ Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,1,2, par.1

Locke argues that innate ideas are unnecessary because the acquisition of all concepts can be explained with reference to sensory experience. For example, Locke argues that it is clear that we experience colours through our sight and therefore, why would God or nature also give us an innate idea of colour if we can also acquire this concept through experience? Therefore, if all ideas can be explained with reference to experience, why should we suppose that we have innate ideas? Using Occam’s razor, we should go for the simpler explanation – that all ideas are acquired from experience.

‘Everyone will agree, presumably, that it would be absurd to suppose that the ideas of colours are innate in a creature to whom God has given eyesight, which is a power to get those ideas through the eyes from external objects. It would be equally unreasonable to explain our knowledge of various truths in terms of innate ‘imprinting’ if it could just as easily be explained through our ordinary abilities to come to know things.’ Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,1,2, par.1

‘Nothing is more commonly taken for granted than that certain principles ... are accepted by all mankind. Some people have argued that because these principles are (they think) universally accepted, they must have been stamped onto the souls of men from the outset.’ Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,1,2, par.2

The Argument - Locke argues that there are no innate ideas because there are no ideas which are universally held (held by everyone). - To demonstrate this, Locke uses two examples from logic: the law of identity, ‘Whatever is, is’ and the law of non-contradiction, ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’. He argues that while these are accepted as strong contenders for innate ideas, they are not universally held because ‘children and idiots’ do not possess these concepts.

‘Children and idiots have no thought – not an inkling – of these principles, and that fact alone is enough to destroy the universal assent that any truth that was genuinely innate would have.’ Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,1,2, par.5

Leibniz Response - Leibniz responds to this criticism by saying that ‘children and idiots’ do possess these concepts; however they are unable to fully articulate these concepts in words. He argues that they show they possess these concepts due to the ways in which they act. Therefore, these concepts could be universal. - Leibniz also responds by arguing that innate ideas do not need to be universal: (i) He argues firstly that not all universal ideas are innate; even if the whole world smoked, this would not mean that the desire to smoke was innate. (ii)Secondly, not all innate ideas need to be universal as God could choose to give certain ideas to only some people.

The transparency of our minds: Some Innatists argue that innate ideas exist in the mind but people are not always aware of them until later in life. However, Locke argues that if the mind has certain ideas imprinted on it then the person would be aware of these ideas – the mind is transparent. If we do not know we have an idea of something/we have never thought about it, then how can the idea be ‘in’ our minds?

‘To imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s perceiving it seems to me hardly intelligible. So if children and idiots have souls, minds, with those principles imprinted on them they can’t help perceiving them and assenting to them.’ Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,1,2, par.5

Leibniz Response Leibniz’s responds by arguing that we can acquire a concept without being conscious of doing so, for example ‘absorbing’ the tune of a song playing in the background without being aware of doing so. Therefore, if we can possess ideas subconsciously, then this undermines Locke’s argument that the mind is transparent.

It would not be possible to distinguish innate ideas from ideas acquired through experience. - If some Innatists claim that innate ideas exist but people may not become conscious of them until later in life then how can we distinguish between innate ideas and ideas gained through experience? - Leibniz replies by saying that we can distinguish between innate ideas and ideas acquired through experience because innate ideas are necessary, such as the truths of mathematics, geometry and logic. Because these types of truths are eternal, they cannot have been acquired from experience but only through reason.

Innatism relies on the supernatural. Many Innatists claim that our innate ideas are imprinted on our minds before birth by God. Locke argues that because empiricism can explain how we acquire ideas naturally, with no need for God/ the supernatural, it is a more plausible theory of the origin of our ideas. However, some Innatists claim that we have innate ideas due to the way our brains have evolved, so innatism does not have to rely on the supernatural.

Explain Leibniz response to Locke’s argument that ‘Children and Idiots’ have no thoughts. (5)