John Locke and His Assertions on Human Understanding, Essay Example

Philosophers have always considered the nature of human understanding, and posed questions about how we attain knowledge about the world around us. In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato developed his Theory of Forms, in which there are two planes of existence, the physical or material realm and the transcendent realm of forms. Plato developed this theory to explain why human perceptions of things and ideas often differed from the shifting and changing reality of the world around him. Forms were the perfect essence of things, while the physical objects, people, animals, and other parts of the materials world were just imperfect representations of the forms. Plato believed that we have an innate knowledge of these forms, while we learn through experience about the physical world around us. This philosophical view is labeled rationalism, while the idea that we do not have innate knowledge and that all we know comes from experience is called empiricism. In “An Essay on Human Understanding,” philosopher John Locke argued against the notion of innate knowledge and in favor of empiricism. His essay makes a strong case for the idea that all knowledge comes from experience, and he addresses many of the arguments that support rationalism in convincing ways.

Philosophers such as Descartes were supporters of rationalism, and believed that human knowledge was innate. Descartes went so far as to say “I resolved one day to pursue my studies within myself,” as if he could learn all he needed to know, and even all that could be known, by looking inside himself, into his own mind. Descartes was not the first to believe in the concept of mediation as a pathway to greater knowledge and understanding, as ideas about mediation dated back to ancient times and have been found in many different cultures. Supporters of the concept of innate knowledge and the philosophical perspective known as rationalism pointed out several significant examples of human knowledge that they claim serve as proof of their position. Some of the most notable examples rationalists point to as proof of innate knowledge are concepts such as time, the universal rules of mathematics, or the belief in the existence of God.

As Descartes described his beliefs and ideas about innate knowledge, “I noticed certain laws which God has so ordained in nature, and of which he has implanted such notions in our minds, that after adequate reflection we cannot doubt that they are exactly observed in everything that exists or occurs in the world.” Descartes had a philosophical viewpoint that was similar to the philosophies of many people who came before him, but John Locke disagreed with the rational viewpoint. What is most interesting about Locke is that he used a similar argument to the one the rationalists made in the sense that he used specific evidence and examples from the world around him to support his philosophical views, but he reached a very different conclusion. The rationalists looked at the mind as something that was filled with innate knowledge about the world, while Locke looked at the mind as a tabula rasa, a blank sheet of paper, waiting to be filled with knowledge.

Locke’s philosophy has come to be known as “empiricism,” from the Greek empeiria, which means “experience.” From this perspective, all knowledge comes from experience. At the core of rationalism is the notion of “universal assent,” which refers to the ideas that were supposedly shared by all human beings. The idea of universal assent is claimed to serve as proof that human beings have innate knowledge, and is in a sense the basic foundation for the entire rationalist philosophy. If the existence of universal assent can be disproven, or if it at least can be argued that universal assent is not proof of innate knowledge, then the entire rationalist philosophy falls apart (at least according to Locke). Locke argues for both ideas; first, that universal assent does not really exist, and second, that even if it did it would not serve as proof of innate knowledge.

First, argues Locke, even if concepts such as mathematics are universal, that does not prove the existence of innate knowledge. What Locke seems to be saying is that these universal truths still must be learned and developed through experience. In a basic sense, whatever an individual knows about mathematics must be learned, from the most basic to the most complicated problems. To support his argument, Locke discusses “idiots and children.” Just as the rationalists claimed that evidence from the world around them served as visible proof of their philosophical viewpoints, Locke also used examples from the world around him to support his own views. Children do not have knowledge of the world around them and must be taught or must learn through experience. And it is not just children who must learn through experience according to Locke; he also mentions a variety of different examples of people who are proof that innate knowledge does not exist. In one example, Locke offers the following:

the inhabitants of the Mariana Islands, [014] which, being separate by a large tract of sea from all communion with the habitable parts of the earth, thought themselves the only people of the world. And though the straitness of the conveniences of life amongst them had never reached so far as to the use of fire till the Spaniards, not many years since, in their voyages from Acapulco to Manilla brought it amongst them, yet in the want and ignorance of almost all things they looked upon themselves, even after that the Spaniards had brought amongst them the notice of variety of nations abounding in sciences, arts and conveniences of life of which they knew nothing, they looked upon themselves, I say, as the happiest and wisest people of the universe. But for all that, nobody, I think, will imagine them deep naturalists or solid metaphysicians; nobody will deem the quickest sighted amongst them to have very enlarged views in ethics or politics; nor can anyone allow the most capable amongst them to be advanced so far in his understanding as to have any other knowledge but of the few little things of his and the neighboring islands within his commerce.

It is easy to follow Locke’s line of reasoning where the “inhabitants of the Mariana Islands” are concerned, as he sees them as evidence that innate knowledge does not exist. If it did, argues Locke, then the people of Mariana would have the same or at least similar knowledge about and understanding of the world around them as people from other parts of the world. When the people of the Mariana Islands first came in contact with people from Spain they were not even familiar with the use of fire. Locke would have understandably seen them as being less knowledgeable about the world as he or other Europeans would be. In Locke’s view, if the mind was completely absent of knowledge about something, then that was proof that the knowledge did not exist in the mind. If it did exist in the mind, then the mind would have an awareness of it, according to Locke. One idea (that knowledge existed in the mind) would contradict the other (that the mind was unaware of this knowledge). As Locke put it, “if truths can be imprinted on the understanding without being perceived, I can see no difference” between that and an absence of innate knowledge. Either knowledge was not innate or there was simply no difference between knowledge that was not innate and knowledge that was not perceived.

Locke is a firm believer in the idea that the best way to learn something was through practical experience. It was certainly a good idea to read and study as a means of learning things, but the idea of learning through experience was particularly appealing to Locke. In many of his writings he used real-world examples of how the opportunity to experience new and different things in life was the best way to learn and gain knowledge about the world. He used examples of people who worked on farms, or who had jobs as mechanics in town, or who worked in the cities as manual laborers and other sorts of jobs. Locke also used the example of someone who was well-educated but then left behind his academic studies and went tot work as a landowner or farmer. Locke saw many advantages for the people who lived in the cities and had access to education, and he saw those who lived a more rural lifestyle as being less likely to have extensive knowledge about the world. Locke did not seem to be saying that there was anything morally wrong about these differences, just that it was an evident fact that different people had different levels of knowledge about the world.

Locke’s argument for empiricism is quite convincing, and seems to fit well with a modern viewpoint about technology and other scientific advances. Even if there are some things that are universally true, like the laws of physics, that does not mean that everyone has innate knowledge about them. The more complicated the world gets, the more it seems that Locke’s views on empiricism were accurate.

References

Banach, D. (2006). Plato’s Theory of Forms. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm