Locke’s argument against innate ideas.

In Locke’s ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, he argues for his view of empiricism, concerning the origin of ideas. A conflicting position for this subject is rationalism. According to rationalists, ideas are innate. However, Locke was an empiricist and believed that ideas came from experience. In this essay I aim to explore Locke’s position on the formation of ideas and consider how his arguments may be criticised or indeed supported.

According to Locke, an idea is “the object of the understanding when a man thinks” (I.i.8). In his ‘Essay’, Locke argues against the notion that ideas are innate in humans. He argued that ideas were formed from sensory experience rather than being innate. By innate, we mean that we were born with the ideas. Locke mentions the argument for innate ideas being that there are universally accepted ideas, so they must be already present in people when they are born. In the ‘Essay’, Locke said that the existence of innate ideas could be disproved if another way was found in which all mankind could come to agree on a certain truth. I think there is a weakness in this argument. In order for his point to be relevant, he would need to find this truth that is universally accepted and prove that it was born from experience. Therefore, the argument that innate ideas are responsible for universal truths is the best explanation that can be given.

Although Locke’s argument does not have a lot to justify it, I think there is an example of a seemingly universally agreed idea that may not be innate. An example of an innate idea is the idea of ‘God’. Since so many cultures and peoples across the world have some kind of deity, it would appear that God is an innate idea. I do not think that this is the case however. The idea of God may be a universal truth that Locke mentions, that is universally accepted but in my opinion not innate.

The idea of God is a concept more than a truth. It does not seem right somehow to claim that God is an innate truth in people, seeing as different cultures have such different ideas about what God is. I think that humans have a common desire to explain our existence and the world around us. Gradually, more and more is being discovered to help us do that. Thousands of years ago however, not as much was known about the universe as is known today, so people had to come up with an explanation for that which they did not understand. For this reason, the idea of a higher power, or a God was created to settle where everything came from. Due to this idea being so widely accepted, it appears innate. However, many people are atheists or rely on science to explain their world. I think this example displays not an innate idea or universal truth, but an innate capability or desire.

An argument Locke uses against the universal agreement argument is that not all people know these apparent universal truths. The examples he uses are illiterate people, children and idiots. He claims that since they are not aware of these truths, the ideas cannot be innate. He argues that there cannot be anything contained in the mind, of which it is not aware. His view is that principles can only be in the mind if we are consciously aware of them.

Here we can criticise Locke’s argument that the mind must be conscious of anything it contains. There are many incidences in which people store information in their minds without being aware of it. For example, some memories may be repressed and only brought into consciousness later in life. Information can also be processed subconsciously. People can notice things without realising, and only be aware of it when something else triggers the thought.

In some ways, Locke’s argument against innate ideas does seem reasonable. It seems that if we were born with knowledge, education would be obsolete, as all the knowledge would already be contained within us. If that were the case, then it is difficult to understand why people have such varying abilities or intelligence, and why children appear to be much less knowledgeable than adults. The difference between adults and children, is that adults have had more experience, and have therefore picked up more knowledge and more ideas. Similarly, with people who know more than others. They have simply been exposed to more information and learned more, and this is why they have this knowledge. It seems that the more experience an individual has, the more knowledge they acquire.

However, as rationalists would argue, it is possible that the knowledge we supposedly acquire from experience, is not new. It is already contained in our minds, and education or experience just makes us aware of it. The rules of mathematics are claimed to be innate in us. For example, the answer to 1+1 is 2. According to Leibniz, this knowledge has always been with us, it is simply ‘uncovered’ when we learn it. This provides an argument against Locke’s theory of children and idiots as proof against innate knowledge. Locke’s view is that they do not have knowledge. However, this argument suggests they possess that knowledge but are yet to realise or uncover it.

Locke does have a solution to the suggestion that mathematics is innate. He claims that until it is shown to a child, they do not know the rules of addition. Consider the methods used by children when they first learn to add and subtract. Mental arithmetic is a skill employed much later. At first, things must actually be counted. The addition must be displayed to them, with either objects or an abacus or some other method. I think Locke makes a good point here. The rationalist argument seems to confuse the fact that mathematical rules are certain, however we try to manipulate them with the notion of them being innate in us. These mathematical truths are representations explaining the universe that exists prior to our knowledge of it. For example, the idea or rules of a circle are not innate in us. They can be discovered and learned, and seen to be universally true, but they exist whether we choose to agree on them or not.

In the last part of his ‘Essay’ Locke makes the point that if ideas were innate, then it would surely be easiest to see this in those who are uncorrupted by experience, i.e. the previously mentioned children and idiots. I think that this argument is the most challenging for rationalists. Locke reasons that as we go through life, our thoughts and opinions are tainted by those of others around us. The evidence for innate ideas therefore would surely be contained in those whose ideas are not corrupted. Children have not had as much exposure to other peoples’ thoughts as adults, so are less likely to believe or be aware of things they themselves have not personally experienced. Surely then, to test the thoughts and ideas of children would be ideal in this investigation. Their ideas are pure and their own, untouched by expectations and insertions of other peoples’ opinions.

The drawback to this argument is however the problem of language. At the point in life when it would be best to inquire about the ideas of a child, they would be unable to respond. With experience comes the ability to express oneself using language. However, once the child is aware of how to use language, it is too late to wonder if their ideas are innate or not. By this time they would have acquired knowledge and ideas from experience, so it could not be determined where their origin was.

To state either that all ideas are innate or all from experience may be too extreme. There may be some ideas that are innate but others which are acquired. It may even be the case that that which is innate is not knowledge or ideas but something else. I think that humans do have innate qualities, but they are not ideas as such. They could be desires or needs instead. For example, the need to eat, reproduce, or stay alive are not ideas that can be learned. They must be innate, or the human race would not be around today. Another aspect which is possibly innate is capability. The brain is able to make us do many things, but it cannot reach its potential to do these things if it is not exposed to the knowledge of how to do them. Humans have the capacity for a lot more than is actually carried out.

I think some of Locke’s arguments do carry some weight. When he uses examples, such as in regard to mathematical rules, there is much more reason to commend his argument. It does seem however, that he does attempt to argue against rationalism without providing counter-examples. He rejects arguments without justifying his points. It seems possible to comprehend arguments which are universally accepted and not innate. The problem is, it is impossible to prove. Both rationalist and empiricist arguments are seemingly impossible to prove however, but Locke does provide some convincing arguments in his attack on innate ideas.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding [online]. Available from: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Essay_contents.html
Lowe, E. J. 2002. Routledge Philosophy Guide to Locke on Human Understanding. Taylor & Francis e-Library
Leibniz, G. W. 2000 New Essays on Human Understanding Trans. & ed. P. Remnant & J. Bennet