Are there innate concepts? 25 mark plan.

Seite 1

Introduction:

I believe that there is no way to know if there are innate concepts. While their existence is probable, it is impossible to determine, for certain, whether they do or do not exist.

I will be looking at general concept empiricist views, as well as the works of Locke and Hume, with the contrasting discussions of Leibniz used as a way to explore the topic in as much detail as it possible.

Paragraph 1:

AA- Innate concepts must be know, consciously, by all humans- There are no such concepts, hence there are no innate concepts (Locke).

CA- Wed do not need to be conscious of knowledge to have it, therefore there is still a possibility that innate concepts exist (Leibniz).

Paragraph 2:

AA- All concepts can be traced back to experience, if not, they are errors, empty or non-existence. So, the idea of innate concepts, not gained through knowledge, is an empty proposition (Hume).

CA- We have concepts of things we are yet, or cannot, experience- Hence, the proposition of innate knowledge is still possible.

Paragraph 3:

AA- All concepts are formed out of experience- If this is true, then innate knowledge is impossible (Concept empiricists).

CA- Necessary truths are not derived from experience- we cannot experience all instances of what is considered a necessary truth, hence to know them, we must have the innate ability to do so, so innate knowledge is still possible (Leibniz).

Paragraph 4:

AA- You cannot prove concepts, for there they rely on external, sense experience (John Mackie).

CA- Despite our inability to prove innate knowledge it seems very likely that they do exist- such as what is seen in baby birds, the existence of innate knowledge seems the most likely conclusion.

Seite 2

Paragraph 1

Locke's argument that there are no universal claims:

If there is innate knowledge, then it must be universal.

For an idea to be part of the mind the person must be aware f such knowledge.

Therefore, innate knowledge must be knowledge that every human being has been conscious of.

Children or 'idiots' do not know theorems in Geometry (as Plato claimed) or 'it is impossible for something to be and not be', for they do not understand them.

Therefore, these claims cannot be Innate

There are absolutely no claims universally accepted.

Therefore, there is no innate knowledge.

Leibniz's response:

Locke use the example of 'it is impossible for something to be and not be at the same time' (X) to disprove innate knowledge, on the basis that you cannot know something you are unconscious of.

It is impossible to distinguish between the concept of something from the concept of something else without knowing X.

We do this kind of distinguishing all the time in everyday life; however, we do it 'without explicitly attending to it'.

General principles, such as X serve, as the basis for all our thinking, yet we are rarely conscious of them explicitly.

Therefore, we can have knowledge that we are unconscious of.

Seite 3

Paragraph 2:

Hume's argument that concepts can be traced back to experience:

Hume believes that all concepts can be traced back to experience, with their real nature often being different to what we would expect. However, if such concepts cannot be traced back, they are not concepts at all, they are errors. Regardless of whether we have a word for them or not. So, any concepts we can trace back come from experience, any we can't trace back, are not concepts at all.

Argument rejecting Hume's claim:

We can have the concept of something, despite not being able to trace it back to any experience. We can have the concept of eternity, despite not having any concept of being out of time. We can also argue that the idea of a being existing before, or after, the formation of the universe cannot be traced back to our experience of existence, for our existence is tied to he life of the universe. Therefore, it is possible to hold concepts that we cannot trace back to experience, so innate knowledge is possible.

Seite 4

Paragraph 3:

The argument that all concepts can be traced back from experience is as follows:

We gain our knowledge of concepts through sense-impression's. Empiricists believe that all concepts are gained through experience, so, my concept of a cup of tea comes from my sense-impression of a cup of tea. So, iff all our concepts comes from sense-impressions, or experience, then there are no innate concepts.

The argument against concept empiricist is (Leibniz):

Experience only tells us how the world is in its current state, not how the laws of nature operate. Therefore, necessary truths must be known a priori. So, we can consider necessary truths as innate, or, at the very least, evidence that not all concepts can be known through experience, for it is impossible to experience every instance of, say, 2+2=4, so we can come to the conclusion that not all concepts come from experience, so innate knowledge is still possible.

Seite 5

Paragraph 4:

Argument from John Mackie:

We can never prove, for certain, the existence of innate knowledge. Because they rely on external sense-data to be known, such is seen with Locke's 'it is impossible to be and not be', we can never prove that there are, indeed, innate concepts.

Argument against:

Despite not being able to prove it, innate knowledge is highly likely. There is nothing to say that it is impossible. Birds in nature are able to sing in response to a call, despite being isolated from their parents since birth, suggesting that it was innate for them. So, we cannot prove innate concepts, yet they seem like the most likely outcome.