Jasmine Benner
PHIL 342
Dr. Susan Mills
December 4, 2015
Innatism That Believes in Instincts Philosophical controversy has surrounded the notion of innate ideas, and the debate surrounding whether or not they really exist. It is no easy feat to prove or disprove the reality of innate knowledge. This idea refers to knowledge in the mind that is accessible from birth, they can be understood immediately and imply a human basis of latent knowledge. John Locke denied innatism using his rationale of empiricism. Ideas that exist separate from experience (lacking prior experience/exposure) are a possibility that can be considered, as well as denied through the inspection of Locke’s literary writings. Locke can be discredited
…show more content…
These nativists assume the existence of innate ideas and experience (a combination of both) to contribute to ideas of the mind, whereas empiricists (like Locke) only really set out under the one assumption that experience is present. By virtue of Ockham’s razor, Empiricism would trump in this aspect because it hinders on fewer assumptions—and a simpler argument is more effective than a complex one. But this doesn’t prove or disprove what Locke advocates: tabula rasa. Being the simpler of the two options does not imply …show more content…
Locke does assume the pre-existence of causality (already present in the mind). Although he does acknowledge these “inherent faculties”, causality seems like a more specific and specialized function (not pertaining to a mere “inherent faculty”). But the nativism referenced by this paper’s thesis is in allusion to instincts. According to an earlier excerpt from Hume, he regards “affection, love of virtue, resentment, and all the other passions” (Hume 648) as instinctual capacities. Henceforth, the claim that Locke refutes instincts along with nativism becomes cloudy. If natural faculties are instincts, then Locke agrees with something synonymous with innate ideas. But it’s unclear, and frankly debateable, if the natural faculties contribute to a cumulative argument aimed at discrediting Locke. When we address Hume’s earlier passage, it seems like the most most credible ammunition against Locke. Insofar as Hume claiming that Locke’s ideas (possibly unbeknownst to the philosopher) are reliant on