Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    John locke, Essay concerning human understanding

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    The senses as the basis of knowledge:

    What are Locke's main arguments against the doctrine of innate knowledge? Do you find them compelling?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 6:07 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Please see attached file.

    Hi, here is a breakdown of Locke's main arguments against innate ideas intermingled with some critical comments. Hope this helps.



    Locke aims to undermine the doctrine of innate ideas [DI]. He doesn't really offer any adequate analysis of what this doctrine amounts to and just who it is that subscribes to it. However, he does present two principles, which are often (he says) alleged to command universal assent, and which have 'the most allowed title to innate' [§4]. These are: [PI] "What is, is" [principle of identity], and [PNC] "It is impossible for the same Thing to be and not to be" [principle of non-contradiction].


    Locke essentially runs two types of argument against DI.

    [A] The first strategy is to undermine the presumption that universal assent, even if granted, supports DI. In other words, he argues that an argument from universal assent to innate ideas must be invalid. He does this by distinguishing between innate principles and necessary and self-evident truths. He does not deny that some propositions command immediate assent; however, he argues that the status of a proposition as necessary and self-evident is distinct from the genetic question of from whence it comes. Locke is plainly right about the invalidity of an argument from assent to innateness. However, the significance of this is not so clear. For one thing, he suggests that universal assent does not support the doctrine of innate ideas if another explanation of the necessity and self-evidence can be provided [§3]. But this apparently recognises that the correct understanding of his opponent's argument is as an inference to the best explanation. This leaves one wondering just how significant it is really to point out its invalidity. Evaluation of an abductive argument is essentially relative to competing hypotheses, and so it's not clear that ...

    Solution Summary

    The expert examines Locke's main arguments against the doctrine of innate knowledge. Whatever is more compelling is given.