Critique of Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding: innate ideas
John Locke begins Book I, chapter 2 of his “Essay on Human understanding” contesting innate ideas in the mind. Locke’s nativist notions fall in line with his protestant culture and other Empiricists of his time. The intent of my essay is to critique Locke’s belief that “no innate ideas exist in the mind”. I on the contrary believe Locke has clearly missed the boarding call for the S.S. Metaphysics. He begins with the assumption that all ideas are derived from empirical experiences alone which plainly and simply is untrue. For if this was true, when have we empirically experienced causation, substance, self, identity, and Time or Space?
Locke for many reasonable explanations is not able to even begin to discuss metaphysics and at best gives a psychological perspective on his opinion of Human understanding from within his own mental capacity. Metaphysics is beyond human understanding; therefore relying upon one’s own empirical perceptions to deduce “human understanding” cannot amount to more than mere words on paper. Locke attempts to capture an essence of knowledge only while knowing a picture or illusion of knowledge. For if we are to truly delve into metaphysics, that which is beyond comprehension, how can a person rely on the faculties of our senses which only perceive things from a subjective perspective?
Locke contends that though some believe that”innate ideas do exist in the mind”, this cannot be so. He goes on listing the points of contention that he is aware of and attempts to dissuade the reader from believing these points by expressing his logical conclusions having contemplated them. He constructs several points of contention I will examine those that I find most egregiously in error.
The first point of contention is “Universal consent proves nothing innate”. Locke claims that Universal consent can be explained by other means and does not prove innateness. He believes even if there was universal consent it proves nothing about innateness and he presumes to be able to prove so. On the contrary to his opinion “Universal consent” can be an indication of innate structures within the mind formulating basic principles that are widely accepted by many men.
A second point he brings up is the universal maxims “What is, is” and “it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be”. He takes the liberty in contending that there are a great many of people who this is not known to. “What is, is” can surely be universally accepted as it is clear as day that this principle falls in line with the principle of causation and possibly other innate ideas/structures within the mind.
Furthermore a third point of debate is the belief that since innate ideas are not naturally imprinted on the minds of children and idiots there can be no innateness. Locke contends “how can something be within the mind and not perceived”? He debates if certain truths can be imprinted upon the mind without perception then why cannot all truths be innate within the mind. To be within the mind and not understood he contends is as if to say “anything is, and is not, in the mind or understanding”. Locke states that the universal maxims “What is, is” and “it is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be”, are naturally imprinted on the mind of children and they cannot be ignorant of it.
“Infants and all that have souls must necessarily have them in their understanding, know the truth of them, and assent to it” this quotation might be slightly taken out of context, but I think it is useful to illustrate my criticism in my belief that this is correct to an extent. Innate notions a priori in the mind do not make up every truth that can be known. They are limited to specific structural basis’s Quality, Quantity, Modality, and Relation.
Does not anyone with simple cognition understand causation, substance, self and identity? These are ideas universally consented to. Even a child knows that if he cries it alerts another that it is time to be fed, causation. A child also knows that things are made up of substances, though this maybe primarily based on some sense perception at an early age, but with more thought brings about concepts of solidity or fluidity which are a part of the basic structure of the mind that define Qualities. Self and identity may be difficult for a child to clearly express, but as simply as recognizing ones’ own name and seeing ones reflection in the mirror can show that even a child can be aware of these innate principles with little thought of them. I think this is evidence enough to refute Locke’s claims of no universal consent. I believe his confidence in his beliefs are greatly overstated and influenced by his limited cultural perspective.
As pertaining to the universal maxim “What is, is; and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be” I believe this maxim holds true, but Locke stretches it a bit too far. Innate ideas are innate ideas even if Locke doubts them. I find trouble refuting this claim because I feel his standing is baseless and ill-conceived. Locke must clearly be oblivious to the systematic structures within the mind that allow us to formulate ideas in the progression of general to specific. He assumes this progression moves from specific to general believing one observes first the particulars to be able to distinguish an object. For example according to Locke one perceives the color red then taste the sweetness of the object and then formulates the idea of an apple. It is clearly the reverse. One observes what is an apple then through particular attention given to the components of the object one then derives that an apple is red and sweet.
His third point of contention claims that “children and idiots do not have innate ideas naturally imprinted upon their mind”. Locke’s logic is clearly flawed unless he is child or idiot because his appeal to authority, himself, is clearly unfit. Though idiots and children cannot express themselves this is not proof of them being void of innate ideas. Idiots and children alike have trouble expressing themselves. What can be known of their true knowledge?
Why is Locke unable to realize true metaphysics and rejects innate ideas? I believe a lot of it has to do with his culture (Protestant), the time period he is in, and his misunderstandings of: Knowledge, Metaphysics, and Ideas themselves. Perhaps Arthur Schopenhauer can enlighten on why Locke’s ability to conceive metaphysical ideas is hampered by his cultural perspective:
The various religions have taken possession of the metaphysical tendency of mankind, partly paralyzing it through imprinting their dogmas upon it in the earliest years, partly by forbidding and proscribing all free uninhibited expression of it; so that free investigation of mans most important and interesting concern, of his existence itself, has been in part indirectly hampered, in part made subjectively impossible by the paralysis referred to; and in this way his most sublime tendency has been put in chains (Schopenhauer , Essays and Aphorisms (New York: Penguin Books, 1970),119)
Perhaps Locke cannot escape these chains. Or maybe he is scared to; perhaps even he sees it as dangerous for others to pursue the limitless metaphysical questions.
I can only hope to have attempted a half as worthy critique upon British Empiricism, as Emmanuel Kant’s work “The Critique of Pure reason”. Borrowing from his “Prolegomena to any future metaphysics” he clearly restates the British Empiricists’ belief of the improbability of innate ideas. Kant clearly states that metaphysical cognition cannot be derived from empirical experience alone, as Locke claims, since metaphysics lies beyond experience. And neither can metaphysical ideas be obtained through inner thought processes as that is the realm of empirical psychology; which Locke mistakes for metaphysics. Metaphysics can solely be derived from pure cognition: a priori.
Kant agrees ideas are derived from sensory experience, though structures exist within the mind to help formulate these ideas in the progression from generalities to particularities. These structures are made up of four categories that consist of three subcategories each that exist within the mind prior to experience, in other words a priori. First, the categories of Quality consist of judgments pertaining to Reality, Negation, and Limitation. Second, the categories of Quantity consist of judgments relating to Unity, Plurality, and Totality. Third, the categories of Relation consist of judgments of Inherence and Substance, Causality and Dependence, and Community. Fourth, the categories of Modality are made up of the subcategories Possibility-Impossibility, Existence-Nonexistence, and Necessity-Contingency.
One place where I feel Locke missteps is his belief or idea that Knowledge is solely the agreement or disagreement of ideas, which leads him down a path of uncertainty. Knowledge is undeniable truth that has been tried and tested. Locke relies too strongly upon his mind’s ability to formulate generalities from specific sensory experience. Locke is unaware of Analytic cognition and assumes all cognition to be Synthetic. To know that this page is a page adds nothing to my knowledge of other pages; this is Analytic. Analytic judgments solely cannot amount to universalities as they add nothing to general concepts. The statement this page is full of words adds to my knowledge that words can be written on paper; this is Synthetic. Locke disregards Analytic cognition and assumes all cognition to be Synthetic.
Reading through Locke I often wonder how clearly he could have been so in error and yet continue to regard himself as right. If any principle in one’s mind he should believe be innate it is that of the conception of God; though he also refutes this idea. All men question their existence and some find answers with a God, but others may look to Metaphysics as a hope to find an answer but will likely be left unsatisfied as it is an endless pursuit of infinite questions that are beyond our cognition.
In conclusion, innate ideas or innate structures do exist within the mind a priori and as a result lead to some universal maxims. My contention rest with Locke’s belief that all our ideas are derived from empirical observation alone. This cannot be so since there are concepts that are beyond experience. A majority of our understanding is based upon our experiences in the world be it empirical observation or mental labor. Though this alone cannot count for the basic ideas of: causation, substance, self, identity, and Time or Space,
I have great respect and admiration for John Locke as he attempts as so many before and after him to determinately map the processes within our mind that we use to create ideas and gain knowledge. This is the fundamental action of our mind and to know this is a pursuit of truth that all men should be inclined to follow. Locke’s overconfidence is perhaps not solely a fault of his own, but as well an aspect of his cultural perspective. He believed the mind is capable of knowing itself unbiased. One’s own mind is the greatest deceiver that a man may come across. Immanuel Kant was able to go beyond and actually realize Metaphysics. Though of course there can be no legitimate proof attained of his pursuit (that is truly beyond mind and spirit), but at the least it goes beyond the inner bias of the mind. Whether Locke, Kant, or I are correct the pursuit of truth is one goal that all should strive for no matter what the outcome might be whether it leads us to the pearly gates of heaven or leaves us stranded on earth staring at the stars wondering as all other have before “Why do we exist”.
