Locke part of the argument that "in understanding are innate ideas" such as the principles of identity (which is s) and of non-contradiction (which is not can not be), then to defend the opposite idea. To do so presents four arguments: first, that innate ideas should have a universal consent not have and secondly it is not evidence of innate ideas to say that we know in the use of reason, that the consent of a rapid test that proposition is innate and ultimately that innate ideas should appear clearer in people uncorrupted by society and this is not true.
For my part, I shall explain the second argument, but for this I must return to the argument that part, where nativism is true if there are universally accepted principles, Locke will say that no such universal principles, concluding that there are innate truths. Thus Locke will argue that no innate universal principles, and to deny it even that they are known in the use of reason. Locke said that if it's true what they say, the nativists, the man would know to have innate ideas of reason or training exercise and this is one that helps to discover such principles, but to deny it, we shall certain points. With regard to the exercise and training of the reason we come to the innate principles, tells us that mathematics to be innate because no need for demonstration and testing consent innate ideas would fall naturally without any effort of reasoning, therefore it would be absurd that innate ideas to be as natural and perfect, just be perceived by the exercise and use of reason as needing a lot of effort. With regard to men known innate ideas in the use of reason, would also be false because even in this supposed time children are able to understand and consciously accept certain "innate principles" such as non-contradiction, but processes that require much more complex and higher. All this would imply that if we accept the two points already mentioned in favor of nativism, would claim that man has printed unfamiliar ideas at once, and I think this would violate the principle of contradiction that they defend as innateness innate idea.
complex process discussed above, is that give rise to ideas, that are not innate, arise because the senses apprehend foreign ideas (Cartesian representation of ideas as things in our minds) . These objects of experience are installed in our minds empty to be with them through a process of abstraction general ideas and principles. But have the concurrence of these principles does not mean that they are innate, but I have a clear understanding of particular terms such as: black, white, and form numbers ... principles such as equality (3 +4 = 7), identity (white is white and not black).
So Locke introduces the notion of time that was absent in Descartes, ideas not being innate, are born, pass, succeed in time, change.
2. Develop what points do not make your argument.
As we saw, Locke makes an attack on innateness, but without convincing too, to start we see that but denies that ideas are innate, is over-understands that it is innate ability to know, to gain ideas, and this does not explain. But how do you know Locke that ideas come from experience and still is so heterogeneous? Locke does not explain too that defines nor experience, but his only form of attack is to take opposing ideas and then deny them.
Another criticism is important that we do that and have tried authors as is the case of Scruton [1] , it's not clear what relationship exists between understanding and the outside so that makes them so compatible to the body of that which "serves" to get ideas from abroad. We clearly see here the causal theory of Locke, where the world and feel my mind become important in such a way that is determined, thus displacing the reason for the privileged place for knowledge. We ask so how the relationship is merely passive part of the understanding, wherein the independent foreign places me in my mind and it simply gets to form ideas naturally? Is there a particular selection of objects from which to form ideas? Seems the world is not reduced to a subjectivism total, as each subject as "ideas" of things in your mind? ... These are questions that remain unresolved.
[1] Scruton, Roger: History of modern philosophy. From Descartes to Wittgenstein.
Critical Bibliography:
Herder Dictionary (CD): Locke, John
Scruton, Roger: "History of modern philosophy. From Descartes to Wittgenstein. "
Text source:
Locke, John: "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
0 comments:
Post a Comment